Upendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.829 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7222 of 2015 ====================================================== Upendra Singh ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (Ga7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant application has been filed for modification of order dated 22.01.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7222 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that typing mistake has occurred in para I of writ petition with regard to description of land. Due to such typographical mistake in writ petition same description of land has been mentioned in para 2(i) of order dated 22.01.2019.
The counsel for petitioner is directed to make necessary correction in description of land in para I of writ petition.
Therefore, the corrected description of land be read in place of earlier description of land as mentioned in para 2(i) of order dated 22.01.2019, as follows:- Khesra No. 63 (0.24 decimal)
Patna High Court MJC No.829 of 2019(3) dt.16-07-2019 2/3 124(0.10)decimal 179(0.19)decimal 197(0.27)decimal 216(0.06)decimal 356(0.22)decimal 358(0.11)decimal and Khata no. 48 having Khesra No.
16(0.28) decimal 37(0.19)decimal 59(0.22)decimal 89(0.59)decimal 300(0.18)decimal 301(0.04)decimal 349(0.16)decimal 425(0.49)decimal 501(0.21)decimal 506(0.32)decimal 507(0.32)decimal 524(0.49)decimal 526(0.48)decimal 527(0.19)decimal 530(0.19)decimal
Patna High Court MJC No.829 of 2019(3) dt.16-07-2019 3/3 530(0.26)decimal 537(0.47)decimal 551(0.69)decimal Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in second line of para 1 of order dated 22.01.2019 inadvertently "learned counsel for informant" has been typed, which should be read as "learned counsel for the petitioner". Let the same be read as "learned counsel for the petitioner" in place of "learned counsel for informant". Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in first line of page 4 of order dated 22.01.2019 Mauza "Basbitta" is wrongly typed in place of Mauza "Basbatta".
Let the same be read as Mauza "Basbatta" in place of Mauza "Basbitta".
Accordingly, the order dated 22.01.2019 is modified as above.
(Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U