Rajayyan Robin Alias Thankappan (Died) v. P. Baby Stella (P1) ,

C.R.P. (MD) NOS. 1749 & 1750 OF 2021 M.DHANDAPANI, J.

These matters are listed today at the instance of the Registry.

2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Registry that this Court had disposed of the main revision petitions vide order dated 18.8.2025 and upon it being uploaded, since the learned counsel for the parties felt that there were some typographical errors in the order, the matter was again listed under the caption "For Being Mentioned" on 29.08.2025 on which date, this Court directed the Registry to carry out the corrections, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties and issue fresh order copy. However, the corrections, which have been directed to be carried out are based on the web copy of the order, which is not correlating with the page numbers of the original order and, therefore, the Registry seeks appropriate clarifications with regard to the same.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submitted that the representation during the time of being mentioned was based on the order, which was uploaded in the web and further submits that it would suffice if this Court directs the Registry to make the necessary corrections and issue fresh order 1/3

copy.

4. This Court perused the original order, which has been signed and also the copy uploaded to the web. There is no quarrel about the fact that both the orders are one and the same but only to the limited extent that correlations with regard to the page numbers, where the errors are pointed out could not be carried out as the page numbers in the web copy and the original signed copy varies.

5. It is to be noted that as and when the copies are uploaded on the web, any typographical errors in the orders would lead to the matter being brought to the notice of the Court and the orders would be passed for correcting the said errors, which is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties based on the web copy. The learned counsel for the parties will not be in possession of the signed copy and, therefore, mention would be only on the basis of the web copy. Therefore, it is for the Registry, to evolve a system to ensure that the web copy is identical in all respects to the signed copy of the order so as to avoid situations of this nature. Therefore, Registry is directed to find a solution to the above problem so that the order, which is hosted on the web is identical to the signed order.

2/3

6. Insofar as the corrections, which are to be carried out by the Registry, as is reflected in the order dated 29.08.2025, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, on the basis of the order dated 18.08.2025, which had been uploaded on the website, Registry is directed to correlate the web copy of the order with the original signed copy of the order and the errors, which have been pointed out to be corrected in the order dated 29.08.2025 on the basis of the web copy shall be corrected in correlation with the original signed copy.

7. Registry is directed to make the necessary corrections, as directed above by correlating the web copy and original signed copy of the orders based on the original order dated 18.08.2025 and the being mentioned order dated 29.08.2025 and issue fresh order copy to the parties. 08.12.2025 GLN 3/3

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

GLN C.R.P. (MD) NOS. 1749 & 1750 OF 2021 08.12.2025 4/3