Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010154402017 2025:GAU-AS:17043 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No: I.A.(Civil)/3939/2025 MD REZAUL HASAN AND ANR S/O ABDUR ROUF R/O HOUSE NO. 5 NABAMILAN PATH JURI LODGE BEHIND OLD MLA HOSTEL DISPUR LASTGATE GUWAHATI-06. 2: KAMRUL HASSAN S/O ABDUR ROUF R/O HOUSE NO. 5 NABAMILAN PATH JURI LODGE BEHIND OLD MLA HOSTEL DISPUR LASTGATE GUWAHATI-06 VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF SAMSUL HUSSAIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI NAZMA PARVEE SULTANA AND ORS W/O LATE SAMSUL HUSSAIN R/O S.S.ROAD LAKHTOKIA KAMRUP(METRO) GUWAHATI-781001 2:MUSFIQUL HUSSAIN S/O LATE SAMSUL HUSSAIN R/O S S ROAD LAKHTOKIA Page No.# 2/3 KAMRUP (METRO) GUWAHATI-781001 3:SHAM FAHMIDA D/O LATE SAMSUL HUSSAIN R/O S S ROAD LAKHTOKIA KAMRUP (METRO) GUWAHATI-781001 ------------ Advocate for : MR. I H SAIKIA Advocate for : MR. K LAHKAR appearing for ON THE DEATH OF SAMSUL HUSSAIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI NAZMA PARVEE SULTANA AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 09.12.2025 Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this interlocutory application under section 151 CPC, the applicants have prayed for correction of the following typographical errors in the connected I.A.(Civil) No. 870/2022: i. In the cause title of the application, the year of Review Petition inadvertently typed as “IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 200/2021” but it should be typed out as “IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 200/2017. ii. In first “IN THE MATTER OF” of page 1, the date of death of the sole defendant Late Samsul Hussain was inadvertently typed Page No.# 3/3 as “25.06.2018” instead of “07.06.2018”. iii. In the third line of paragraph-3 of page-4, the date of death of the sole defendant was inadvertently typed as “25.06.2018” instead of “07.06.2018”. iv. In the first and ninth lines of paragraph-4 of page-4, there were 2 (two) blank portions left which were totally unintentional and in both that blank portion that should have been typed as 603. v. In tenth line of the prayer portion of page-5, inadvertently one blank portion was left and in that blank portion, it should have been typed as 603. 3. Although the learned counsel for the respondents has objected to the prayer made, considering that the corrections which are sought for are typographical errors, the prayer made in this interlocutory application stands allowed. 4. Necessary corrections in the I.A.(Civil) No. 870/2022 shall be carried out by the learned counsel for the respondents under his signature within two days. Similar corrections shall also be carried out in the copy provided to the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. This interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant