Sriparna Maity vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 748 Cal

22.02.2022
   S.D.
   01.
                                         C.R.R. 788 of 2014
                                       (Via Video Conference)

                   In the matter of: Sriparna Maity
                                                                       ......Petitioner.
                   Md. Raziuddin
                                                               ...For the Petitioner.
                   Mr. Binoy Panda
                   Ms. Puspita Saha
                                                                      ...For the State.

                   Mr. Sridhar Chandra Bagari
                                                         ....For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5.

                  This matter has been listed today under the heading "To Be

             Mentioned".

                  Learned Advocate for the petitioner is present. Mr. Binoy Kumar

             Panda along with Ms. Puspita Saha, learned advocates for the State are

             also found present. Mr. Sridhar Chandra Bagari, learned advocate for the

             opposite party nos. 2 to 5 is not found available.

                  Learned advocates for the State drew my attention to the order

             dated 16.2.2022 whereby the revisional application was disposed of. It is

             submitted that while disposing of the revisional application, in the first

             line of the second paragraph in page 4, a typographical/clerical mistake

             has occurred whereby the words "any confusion" should be rectified as

             "no confusion".

                  Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that necessary

             rectification may be made, if there is no review or alteration of the order.

                  Considered the submission.
                                2




     I am of the view that by replacing the word 'any' by the word 'no',

there will be to material change in the order and it will be a rectification

of the sentence which can otherwise be construed by reading the entire

judgment. Therefore, the word in the first line of the second paragraph,

in page four (4) be rectified and read as 'no' in place of 'any'.

     Let this order be read conjointly and form part of order dated

16.2.2022

. The other parts of the order shall remain the same.

(Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.)