Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10503 (CHH)

SMT. NEETU RAHUT v. PRATEEK RAHUT

CRMP/719/2025 · 2025-03-05

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:10880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 719 of 2025 Smt. Neetu Rahut W/o Shri Prateek Rahut Aged About 31 Years R/o Lig- 05 B-4, Ground Floor, Himalayan Heights, Devpuri, Dumartarai, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Prateek Rahut S/o Shri Shyamlal Rahut Aged About 34 Years R/o B/2-1002, Megapolis Symphony, Hinjewadi Phase 3, Pune, Maharashtra 2 - Shyamlal Rahut S/o Sachindra Nath Rahut Aged About 65 Years R/o 811, Sneh Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 3 - Smt. Sampa Rahut W/o Shri Shyamlal Rahut Aged About 55 Years R/o 811, Sneh Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 4 - Kamal Rahut S/o Shri Sachindra Nath Rahut Aged About 61 Years R/o- 811, Sneh Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 5 - Smt. Ritu Rahut W/o Shri Kamal Rahut Aged About 52 Years R/o- 811, Sneh Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.03. 2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner for rectifying the clerical error in the judgment passed by this Court in TPCR No. 34/2024, vide order dated 10.02.2025. 2. Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner herein submits that in TPCr No. 34/2024, he had represented the respondent- Smt. Neetu Rahut and the said petition came to be allowed vide order dated 10.02.2025. In the said order, the name of the counsel for the respondent has been mentioned as “Siddharth Pandey” which infact should have been ‘Siddharth Dubey’ and as such, the same requires to be modified suitably. 3. The request appears to be reasonable. As such, it is directed that in the order dated 10.02.2025, passed in TPCR No. 34/2024, where ever the name of the counsel for the respondent is mentioned as “Siddharth Pandey” the same be read as “Siddharth Dubey”. 4. Accordingly, this CRMP stands allowed. 5. A copy of this order be placed alongwith the records of TPCr No. 34/2024. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal