Disposed¶19

joyram construction and Ors. v. krishna das and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Jun 2025CO/2618/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.O. 2618 of 2022; Joyram Construction; Krishna Das; Calcutta High Court; civil revisional jurisdiction; appellate side; correction of typographical errors; advocate commissioner; engineer's commissioner; order dated 16.06.2025; 6th August 2020; Menoka Rani Dogra v. Subir Karati; 2016 SCC Online Cal 4273; To Be Mentioned; server copy; Dinesh Kumar Sharma.

What did the court decide?

Direction to carry out four typographical corrections in the Court's order dated 16.06.2025, with the remaining contents of the order left unaltered and parties to act on the server copy. ¶19

joyram construction and Ors. Vs krishna das and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

01.07.2025 Court No.25 Item No.2 sudipta

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

C.O. 2618 of 2022

¶4

Joyram Construction & Ors. Vs.

¶5

Krishna Das & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Sourjya Das Ms. Pulami Bhowmick

¶7

…for the petitioners

¶8

Mr. Arun Kumar Dev Mr. Ajay Dutta Mr. Pinaki B. Ghosh

¶9

…for the opposite party no.1

¶10

The matter has been taken up under category To Be Mentioned.

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties have pointed out certain typographical errors which are as follows:

¶12

I. The date of the order on the first page left

¶13

hand side has been mentioned as 16.07.2025 instead of 16.06.2025.

¶14

II. On the second page at paragraph 2 in second line “engineer’s commissioner” has

¶15

been typed instead of “advocate commissioner”.

¶16

III. On third page at paragraph 4 in 6^th line the date has been typed as “6^th August, 2022” in place of “6^th August, 2020”.

¶17

¶18

IV. On fourth page at paragraph 5, the judgment “Menoka Rani Dogra Vs. Subir Karati reported in 2016 SCC Online Cal 4273” was cited by the petitioner and the same needs to be deleted as the same has already been mentioned in paragraph 4 at page 3.

¶19