Hardev Sharma & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Kumar & Anr. CMPMO No.355 of 2023 13.05.2025 Present: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioners. CMP No.10091 of 2025 CMPMO No.355 of 2023 instituted by the applicants was decided on 17.07.2023 with following operative directions:- “3. Taking into consideration the zimni orders placed on record, wherein despite repeated opportunities granted to the petitioners (defandants), they have not filed reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Trial Court in closing the right of the petitioners (defendants) to file reply. However, taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) that order in the application in hand (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) is yet to be passed by the learned Trial Court and also in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners (defendants) for filing reply to the application. This shall, however, be subject to costs of Rs.3000/- to be paid by the petitioners (defendants) to the respondents (plaintiffs) on the next date of listing of the matter before the learned Trial Court. It is made clear that the petitioners (defendants) shall file their reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 13.09.2023 and no further opportunity for the said purpose shall be granted by the learned Trial Court.” 2. It appears that the applicants could not get the benefit of aforesaid order since in the body of the petition, the provision was incorrectly mentioned as ‘Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC’, which accordingly found mention in the judgment, whereas, the correct provision was ‘Order 39 Rule 2A CPC’. Faced with this, the error as noticed during proceedings before the learned Trial Court, petitioner moved CMP No.19866 of 2023 for correcting the typographical error. The aforesaid application was allowed on 16.03.2024 as under:- “Learned vice counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the application under consideration in CMPMO No.355 of 2023 was under ‘Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)’. Inadvertently, in the body of the petition, the provision was mentioned as ‘Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC’. The resultant error crept in the judgment dated 17.07.2023, disposing of CMPMO No.355 of 2023, therefore, needs to be corrected. On perusing the case record and the averments made in the application, the prayer of the applicants is accepted. Reference to ‘Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC’ made in decision dated 17.07.2023 in CMPMO No.355 of 2023, be now read as ‘Order 39 Rule 2A CPC’. Necessary corrections be carried out by the Registry in the judgment dated 17.07.2023. The application stands disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants/petitioners are still not in a position to get the benefit of judgment dated 17.07.2023 read with order dated 16.03.2024 as the time granted to them for filing reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC had elapsed long ago, i.e. on 13.09.2023. Learned counsel for the applicants prays that the time as granted to the applicants/petitioners under judgment dated 17.07.2023 be extended by two weeks from today. 4. Taking note of the judgment dated 17.07.2023, order dated 16.03.2024 passed in CMP No.19866 of 2023 and the orders passed by the learned Trial Court thereafter, the time period to file reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is extended by two weeks from today, subject to costs as is already imposed upon the applicants/petitioners under the aforesaid judgment. The application is allowed and to stand disposed of in the above terms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh