HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 164/2026 1. State Bank Of India, Having Its Registered Office At State Bank Bhawan, M.c. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Through Its Local Head Office At Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Rajesh Kumar Meena, Assistant General Manager (Human Resources) At Present Assistant General Manager, Human Resource, Niraj Kumar. 2. Mr. A.c. Rout, Aged About 49 Years, General Manager (Hr And General Admin), State Bank Of India, Having Its Local Head Office At Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. (Now Retired) ----Petitioners Versus Babu Lal Meena Son Of (Late) Shri Panchuram Meena, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Dhani Kaythawali Tan - Amai, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal Mr. Vikram Singh Ms. Annika Anna Mr. Vikash Samota (through VC) For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 16/04/2026 1. The State Bank of India has filed this application seeking correction of paragraph No.13 of order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court. 2. It is stated that while the tenor of the complete order reflects that Court has accepted the contentions of the applicants and (2 of 3) [WMAP-164/2026] have declared the non-applicant as a vexatious litigant but erroneously in paragraph 13, the application filed by the respondent bearing No.02/2024 has been allowed. Learned counsel prays for appropriate correction. 3. He prays that the word “allowed” mentioned in paragraph 13 should be read as “disallowed”. 4. Per contra, the respondent has filed counter reply and opposed the correction stating that the order passed does not warrant any interference and the application moved by the petitioner had rightly been allowed. 5. We notice that in the Application No.02/2024 filed in the main writ petition, the respondent had made several prayers for initiating action against the officers of the Bank. We are convinced that when we had declared the respondent as a vexatious litigants, there was no occasion to allowed his Application No.02/2024. The order, therefore, requires to be corrected and we accordingly correct our order and henceforth, the word “disallowed” shall be read instead of “allowed”. 6. The reply filed to this application by the respondent further seeks several other prayers and virtually wants re-hearing which cannot be allowed at his behest. 7. We notice that an application for adjournment has also been moved by the concerned respondent seeking personal hearing. The same is rejected. 8. Keeping in view the correction made above, we direct the Bench Reader to upload a fresh copy of the order dated 30.10.2025 incorporating the aforesaid correction in paragraph No.13, as directed above. (3 of 3) [WMAP-164/2026] 9. The present misc. Application No.164/2026 stands disposed of. 10. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ Arjun /19