[2025:JHHC:11078] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.935 of 2023 ------ 1. Krishna Mistry, aged about 62 years 2. Bishun Mistry, aged about 48 years 3. Shankar Mistry, aged about 38 years All sons of Late Makhiran Mistry 4. Kalawati Devi @ Kalwati Devi, aged about 54 years D/o Late Makhiran Mistry 5. Ramchandra Mistry, aged about 70 years 6. Ramswarath Mistry, aged about 82 years, Both sons of Late Sahdeo Mistry All by faith – Hindu, by profession – Cultivation, All resident of Village – Silidag, P.O.- Ramuna, P.S.- Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. Biran Mahto 2. Jitan Mahto Both sons of Late Ramdas Mahto resident of Village – Silidag, Post Office- Ramuna, P.S.- Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : None ------ Order No:-07 Dated:-11-04-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite parties in spite of repeated calls though they have put in their appearance through their lawyer. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for amendment of judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.279 of 2004 by this Court by correcting the printing error in the fifth line from the bottom of internal page-11 (paragraph-25) of the said judgement, wherein the number of the sale-deed has been mis- printed as 1004 instead of 1000. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fifth line from the bottom of internal page-11 (paragraph-25) of the said judgement, the number of the sale-deed be amended as 1000 in place of 1004. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.279 of 2004 be modified accordingly. Perusal of the record reveals that by printing error, the sale-deed number has erroneously been mentioned as 1004 instead of 1000 of the year 1975. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the prayer for modification of judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.279 of 2004 is allowed. Accordingly, the judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.279 of 2004 passed by this Court is amended by substituting the sale-deed number as 1000 in place of 1004 in the fifth line from the bottom of the internal page-11 (paragraph-25) of the said judgement. The judgment dated 03.11.2022 in Second Appeal No.279 of 2004 passed by this Court is modified to the aforesaid extent only. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/