Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 429 Gua
Judgement Date : 8 February, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010185162020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2230/2020
SMT. SANGITA CHOPRA
W/O- SHRI VIJAY KUMAR CHOPRA, SIDDHARTH RESIDENCY, 4TH FLOOR,
JAIN GALI, PALTANBAZAR, NEAR MEGHDOOT CINEMA HALL,
GUWAHATI- 781008, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M)
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI-781001
4:NIRMAL KUMAR AGARWALLA
ROOM NO. G-14
GROUND FLOOR
PARMESHWARI BUILDING
CHATRIBARI
GUWAHATI-781001 (ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V K CHOPRA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE
Page No.# 2/3
Linked Case : WP(C)/5750/2019
SANGITA CHOPRA
W/O- SHRI VINAY KUMAR CHOPRA
SIDDHARTH RESIDENCY
4TH FLOOR
JAIN GALI
PALTANBAZAR
NEAR MEGHDOOT CINEMA HALL
GUWAHATI- 781008
ASSAM. EMAIL- [email protected]
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.- 781006.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M)
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001.
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
O/O. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M)
GHY.- 781001.
4:NIRMAL KUMAR AGARWALLA
ROOM NO. G-14
GROUND FLOOR
PARMESHWARI BUILDING
CHATRIBARI
GUWAHATI- 781001 (ASSAM).
------------
Advocate for : MR. V K CHOPRA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Page No.# 3/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 08.02.2021 Heard Shri A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the applicant petitioner who has file this application for correction of a trivial error occurring in the judgment dated 19.11.2020 passed in the connected writ petition WP (C) No. 5750/2019. Also heard Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned standing counsel for the Review Department.
Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that since a number of cases were disposed of by separate judgments on the same date where the issues were identical, the error in recording the name of the petitioner has occurred.
By referring to the second line in paragraph - 2, the learned counsel submits that instead of the expression "original petitioner (Om Prakash Rathi)", it should be "petitioner Sangita Chopra)".
After hearing the parties, it is directed that the expression "original petitioner (Om Prakash Rathi)", be read as "petitioner (Sangita Chopra)".
To remove any further confusion and difficulty, the present order may be treated as a part of the order date 19.11.2020.
I.A. accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!