Shri Utpal Datta And Others vs The Assistant General ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 822 Tri

                               HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                     AGARTALA
                                   Review Pet.48 of 2022

      Shri Utpal Datta and Others
                                                                         ..........Petitioner(s)
                                             Versus

      The Assistant General Manager(HQ)
                                                                      ..........Respondent(s)

      For Petitioner(s)                 : Mr. Sankar Deb, Sr. Adv.
      For Respondent(s)                 : Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv.


                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                                             Order

     05/09/2022

Heard Mr. Sankar Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC praying for review of the judgment and order passed by this court in CRP 54 of 2022 passed on 29.07.2022 with respect to the observations made in paras 20, 22 and 25 of the said judgment and order.

3. The CRP is filed seeking following reliefs :

i) Issue notice calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the judgment & Order passed on 29.07.2022 in CRP 54 of 2022 between Shri Utpal Datta and 2 Others, petitioners and the Assistant General Manager (HQ), BSNL, respondent shall not be reviewed in the light of the facts stated above ;

ii) Call for record; and

iii) After hearing the parties be pleased to allow this petition in terms of i) above;

iv) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;

4. After hearing both sides the above CRP No.54/2022 has been reserved for orders. On 29.07.2022 the court has pronounced the orders dismissing the CRP. The counsel for the petitioners made an oral argument for granting some time for handing over the vacant possession. The respondent counsel has submitted that already the premises are vacant and the petitioners are staying elsewhere and objected for

granting time. Though an application seeking time was not filed, having consideration for the long stay by the petitioners in the said premises, this court after pronouncing the order granted one month time for handing over the premises. The same was agreed by both sides.

5. Now the present Review application is filed seeking certain corrections of date which inadvertently occurred being typographical mistakes :

1) The date 13.05.2022 occurred in para 22 of the order dated 29.07.2022 delivered in CRP 54 of 2022 be read as date 13.07.2022.

2) The date 13.05.2022 in para 22 be read as date 13.07.2022 (received by the petitioners on 13.07.2022).

3) The memo dated 30.09.2000 is merged in the order dated 11.07.2022.

6. Further, the counsel for the petitioners prayed to delete para 25 of the order wherein the court granted one month time for vacating. It is represented by the learned counsel that para 25 would come in their way if this order dated 29.07.2022 passed in CRP is further challenged.

7. The counsel for the respondent represented by Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel made no objection as the petitioners have already vacated and the respondent might have taken possession as the one month time granted expired by dated 28.08.2022. In view of the above, para 25 is deleted.

Accordingly, the Review petition is disposed of.

Registry shall serve copy of this order on both sides.

JUDGE

Sabyasachi B