Sangita Chopra vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2688 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010185182020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2262/2020

            SANGITA CHOPRA
            W/O- SHRI VIJAY KUMAR CHOPRA, SIDDHARTH RESIDENCY, 4TH FLOOR,
            JAIN GALI, PALTANBAZAR, NEAR MEGHDOOT CINEMA HALL, GHY-8,
            ASSAM, M.NO. 94354-07025, EMAIL- [email protected]



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. REVENUE 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.# 2/2




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                           ORDER

03-08-2022 Heard Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant petitioner who has filed 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. 5877/2019. Also heard Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel for the Review Department.

Shri Singh, learned counsel for the applicant 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 dated 19.11.2020.

The Interlocutory application accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant