T.Hansika v. G.Arun Ram Prasath

Tr. C.M.P. No.508 of 2018 T.RAJA, J.

This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been a typographical error crept in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 01.10.2020 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner/wife is also working in Chennai which is incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is residing in Chennai but not working in Chennai. Therefore, he requested this Court to rectify the same. 3.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner/wife is residing in Chennai but not working in Chennai, registry is directed to issue fresh order copy by rectifying the said lines as under:

'In paragraph 3, 3rd line from the bottom the words 'and she is also working in Chennai' be deleted and in paragraph 4, the words 'and the petitioner/wife is also working in Chennai' in 1st and 2nd lines be deleted.'

03.12.2020 vga http://www.judis.nic.in

T.RAJA, J.

vga Tr. C.M.P. No.508 of 2018 03.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in