Pankaj Kumar Vs Kamlesh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pankaj Kumar Vs Kamlesh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Cause-title correction allowed: in the judgment rendered in S.A. No. 08/2025 the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar is to be read as 'Gulabchand Jain' in place of 'Anupchand Jain'; the order is directed to be made part of the record of Second Appeal No. 08/2025; with the aforesaid correction, the MCC stands disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the recording of 'Anupchand Jain' as the father of the applicant (respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar) in the judgment dated 13.03.2026 was a mere typographical error, the correct father's name being 'Gulabchand Jain'. +1 more

Court's answer

The judgments and decrees of both the learned first Appellate Court and the learned trial Court record the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar as 'Gulabchand Jain'; the divergent 'Anupchand Jain' entered the 13.03.2026 judgment because this Court took the party details from the cause title of the second appeal.

Ratio / Principle

On the parties' submissions that the cause title of the memo of second appeal carried a typographical error, and further considering the description of the parties in the cause titles of the judgments and decrees of both courts, the Court found that an error had crept into the cause title of the judgment rendered in S.A. No. 08/2025 as to the father's name of the applicant/plaintiff and directed its correction.

Key takeaways

Operative correction directed: in the judgment rendered in S.A. No. 08/2025, the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar is to be read as 'Gulabchand Jain' in place of 'Anupchand Jain'.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur - MCC No. 315 of 2026, order dated 02.04.2026 (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.). The applicant, who was respondent No. 1/plaintiff in the underlying second appeal (styled 'Second Appeal No. 631/2024' in the opening paragraph of the order but referred to throughout the remainder as 'Second Appeal No. 08/2025'/'S.A. No. 08/2025'), applied for correction of the cause title of the judgment dated 13.03.2026 dismissing that appeal, wherein his father's name had been recorded as 'Anupchand Jain'. The judgments and decrees of both the learned trial Court and the learned first Appellate Court, however, showed the father as 'Gulabchand Jain', and counsel on both sides agreed the memo-of-appeal entry was a typographical error. Holding that the error had crept into the judgment's cause title from the cause title of the memo of second appeal, the Court directed that the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar be read as 'Gulabchand Jain' in place of 'Anupchand Jain', ordered the correcting order to be made part of the record of Second Appeal No. 08/2025, and disposed of the MCC.

1

2026:CGHC:15365

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCC No. 315 of 2026

Pankaj Kumar S/o Gulabchand Jain Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Singarpur, Tahsil Daondilohara, District- Balod

... Applicant

versus

SHOAIB Digitallysigned bySHOAIBANWAR ANWAR Date:2026.04.0216:10:11+0530

1 - Kamlesh S/o Anupchand Jain Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Arjunda, Tahsil Gundardehi, Present R/o Devri, Tahsil Daondilohara, District Balod (C.G.)

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Applicant	: Shri Shikhar Bakhtiyar,Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: Shri Rajkumar Pali, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Shri Lekhram Dhruv,Panel Lawyer

2

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

02.04.2026

This MCC has been filed by the applicant (respondent No. 1/plaintiff in second appeal) seeking correction in the cause title of the judgment passed in Second Appeal No. 631/2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 13.03.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed in Second Appeal No. 08/2025, the name of the father of the present applicant, who is respondent No. 1./plaintiff Pankaj Kumar, has wrongly been mentioned as “Anupchand Jain”, whereas the correct name of his father is “Gulabchand Jain”.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though in the memo of appeal, the name of the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar has been shown as “Anupchand Jain”, the same appears to be a typographical error, and in fact, the name of his father is “Gulabchand Jain”.

3

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record of the trial Court.

It appears from both the judgments and decrees of learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court that the name of the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar has been shown as “Gulabchand Jain”, whereas, in the memo of second appeal his father name has been shown as “Anupchand Jain” and as per the cause title of the second appeal, this Court mentioned the details of the parties in the judgment dated 13.03.2026.

However, having considered the submissions made by the parties that there is typographical error in the cause title of memo of second appeal and further considering the description of the parties mentioned in the cause title of the judgments and decrees by both the courts, the error crept in the cause title of the judgment rendered in S.A. No. 08/2025, in respect of the name of father of applicant/plaintiff is directed to be corrected, and the name of the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff

4

Pankaj Kumar be read as “Gulabchand Jain” in place of

“Anupchand Jain”.

With the aforesaid correction, the MCC stands disposed

of.

Let this order be made part of the record of Second

Appeal No. 08/2025.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

Judge

Shoaib