Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34737 (RAJ)

BHOM SINGH v. INDER RAJ S/O HARDEV

CMAP/329/2024 · 2025-01-08

Narendra Singh Dhaddha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:1150] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 329/2024 1. Bhom Singh, S/o Bhola Ram R/o Ghakika, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. 2. Ramniwas S/o Bhola Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Ghakika, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Inder Raj S/o Hardev, R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs) 2. Suresh, Son Of Inder Raj R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar 3. Vijay Singh Alias Mater, Son Of Inder Raj R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar 4. Dalip Singhy, Son Of Inder Raj R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar 5. Rohtash, Son Of Inder Raj R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar 6. Ramesh, Son Of Inder Raj R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar 7. Vikram Singh, Son Of Inder Raj R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar 8. Manbhadra S/o Chen Sukh, R/o Ghikak, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs). 9. Smt Chameli, Widow Of Manbhadra 10. Jai Prakash, S/o Manbhadra 11. Babulal, S/o Manbhadra 12. Jaswant, S/o Manbhadra. 13. Surekha Widow Of Kailash S/o Late Shri Manbhadra., All R/o Ghikaka, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Jain [2025:RJ-JP:1150] (2 of 2) [CMAP-329/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 08/01/2025 This civil misc. application has been filed by the applicant(s) under Section 152 CPC for rectification of typographical error in the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by this Court in Civil First Appeal No. 71/1989. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submits that due to typographical error in the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by this Court in line No. 13 of page No. 6 “khasra No. 457” has been wrongly typed whereas it should be “khasra No. 454” and in the last paragraph of the judgment words “Cr.P.C.” have also been wrongly typed instead of “C.P.C.”. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant(s) be allowed and the typographical error be rectified. Heard. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it fit to allow the application filed by the applicant(s). Application is allowed and in line No. 13 of page No. 6 of the judgment dated 10.10.2024, “Khasra No. 457” be read as “Khasra No. 454” and the words “Cr.P.C.” as mentioned in the second last paragraph of the judgment 10.10.2024 be read as “C.P.C”. Rest part of judgment shall remain same. This order shall be treated as part and parcel of the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by this Court. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/68