( 2026:JHHC:10609 ) -1- Civil Revision No.17 of 2025 With C.M.P. No.592 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No.17 of 2025 Pinki Devi @ Asha Devi, aged about 51 years, wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta, daughter of Late Laxmi Narayan Sahu, resident of Flat No. 304, 3rd Floor, Nandlal Tower, R.C. Street, Tharpakhna, G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi … Petitioner -Versus- Arbind Kumar Gupta, son of Late Balo Sahu, resident of Behind Popular Nursing Home, Ratu Road, Ranchi, P.O. Hehal, PS Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi … Opposite Party With C.M.P. No.592 of 2025 Pinki Devi @ Asha Devi, aged about 51 years, wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta, daughter of Late Laxmi Narayan Sahu, resident of Flat No. 304, 3rd Floor, Nandlal Tower, R.C. Street, Tharpakhna, G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi … Petitioner -Versus- Arbind Kumar Gupta, son of Late Balo Sahu, resident of Behind Popular Nursing Home, Ratu Road, Ranchi, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate ----- 15/15.04.2026 These matters have already been disposed of vide judgment dated 24.03.2026. On mention slip of the learned counsel for the petitioner, these matters have been listed today. 2. It has been pointed out that in paragraph 29 of the said judgment, the impugned order’s date has been wrongly typed as 29.11.2004 in place of 29.11.2024. 3. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that the said error has occurred inadvertently and in view of that, paragraph 29 of the said judgment may kindly be modified. 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party also accepts the said submission. ( 2026:JHHC:10609 ) -2- Civil Revision No.17 of 2025 With C.M.P. No.592 of 2025 5. In view of the above and finding that the impugned order’s date is correctly typed in paragraph 3 of the said judgment, whereas, in paragraph 29 thereof, it has been wrongly typed as 29.11.2004 in place of 29.11.2024 and in that view of the matter, paragraph 29 of the said judgment be now read as “Resultantly, the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.12 of 2020 is also set-aside”. 6. Paragraph 29 of the judgment dated 24.03.2026 is modified to the above effect. 7. Rest of the said judgment is kept intact. 8. Let this order be treated as part of the judgment dated 24.03.2026. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 15th April, 2026 Ajay/