D/L.3. July 17, 2025. MNS. FA No. 177 of 2024 + CAN 3 of 2022 Amal Kumar Ghosh Vs. Rathindra Mohan Ghosh and others 1. It has been pointed out by the Office that although the appeal has been disposed of inter alia in the name of the substituted respondent nos. 3(a) and 3(b), the necessary corrections, despite appearing in the connected applications, have not been effected in the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal itself, where the said substituted respondents have been shown as respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Hence, the Office is facing difficulty in drawing up the decree in the appeal. 2. Accordingly, the Office is directed to carry out the necessary corrections to the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal by depicting the respondent no. 3 Debabrata Singh as respondent no. 3(a) and the respondent no. 4 Anjana Ghosh as respondent no. 3(b). 3. Such corrections shall be carried out by the Office at the earliest, preferably within a week from date. 4. A formal decree be drawn up accordingly. (Uday Kumar, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)