Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19310 (GAU)

SMT BALIKA TALUKDAR v. MD MAJNUR ALI

I.A.(Civil)/3038/2025 · 2025-09-09

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010193132025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3038/2025 IN CRP(IO)/366/2025 SMT BALIKA TALUKDAR WIFE OF LATE BALORAM TALUKDAR PERMENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARBILA P.O. BHALLA MOUZA - NAGAON IN THE DISTRICT OF BARPETA ASSAM PIN - 781309 VERSUS MD MAJNUR ALI SON OF LATE JAMSED ALI RESIDENT OF BAHBARI P.S. TAMULPUR MOUZA - KUMARIKATA IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR B N SARMA Advocate for : appearing for MD MAJNUR ALI Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 10.09.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. B.N. Sarma for the applicant. 2. It is submitted that an error has crept up in the order dated 01.09.2025 in CRP (IO) No. 366/2025. There was an inadvertent typographical error on the last line of paragraph 2 of the order dated 01.09.2025 i.e., the plaint marked as Document No. 4 at page-16 should be corrected as Document No. 1 at page-16. It is further submitted that in paragraph 6 of the order dated 01.09.2025, the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 ought to be typed and corrected as 28.07.2025. 3. In paragraph No. 1 of the order dated 01.09.2025, petition No. 481/25 under Section 153 is required to be incorporated before the Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC as in the Document No. 10 i.e. page 64 of the CRP (IO), the application No. 481/2025 was filed under Section 153 and Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 and the same may be corrected in paragraph 1 of the order dated 01.09.2025 in CRP(IO)/366/2025. 4. It is further submitted that in CRP(IO)/366/2025, there was also an inadvertent mistake by the advocate’s clerk regarding document No. 1 i.e. plaint of the plaintiff/respondent was stitched written statement of the defendant/petitioner instead of plaint of plaintiff/respondent in the CRP(IO) No. 366/2025. It is submitted that the same may be allowed to stitch the plaint i.e. document No. 1 by removing the written statement of the defendant/petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 It is further submitted that the cause title of CRP(IO)/366/2025 at page-2, petition No. 481/2025 under Section 153 is not typed and written in the cause title due to typographical mistake as such, Section 153 is allowed to be inserted, with under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 in the said cause title of the petition. 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. All the errors are corrected and rectified and this order will form a part of the order dated 01.09.2025 in CRP(IO)/366/2025. The errors of the advocate’s clerk are also to be rectified and corrected. 7. In terms of the above observation, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant