Allowed

Smt. Lalita Baghel v. Bhagirathi Baghel

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCC/870/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application under Section 152 CPC to correct a typographical error in a previous order. The court modified an earlier order to reflect the correct compensation amount of Rs. 8,39,592/- instead of the erroneously stated Rs. 4,19,796/-.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 25.08.2023 was modified to read 'Rs. 8,39,592/-' instead of 'Rs. 4,19,796/-' in paragraphs 2 and 6.

Smt. Lalita Baghel Vs Bhagirathi Baghel — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by PRAKASH PRAKASH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.09.16 17:00:04 +0530

CGHC010350112026

2026:CGHC:40333

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCC No. 870 of 2026

¶8

1 - Smt. Lalita Baghel W/o Late Samnath Baghel, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Kakadgaon, Post Dahikonga, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh),

¶9

2 - Ku. Kiran D/o Lat Samnath Baghel, Aged About 1 Years Minor - Through Her Legal Guardian and Mother Smt. Lalita Baghel, R/o Village Kakadgaon, Post Dahikonga, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh),

¶10

... Applicant/Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Bhagirathi Baghel S/o Arjun Baghel, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Kakadgaon, Post Dahikonga, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh),

¶13

2 - New India Insurance Company Limited, Through - Branch Manager, Branch Office, Akashwani Road, Gandhi Nagar Ward, M.M. Tower, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Applicants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

16/09/2026

¶19

1. This application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed for correction of the typographical error occurred in the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in MAC No.718/2021.

¶20

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bastar, Place – Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh has passed an award dated 16.03.2020 in Civil Case No.32/2018/EC Act/Faital and awarded compensation of Rs.8,39,592/- in favour of the applicants/claimants. As no interest was awarded from the date on which the compensation fell due, the appeal was filed. This Court while partly allowing the appeal, granted interest on the awarded amount from the date it fell due i.e. date of accident i.e. 15.07.2018 till the same was deposited. He submits that in paragraph 2 and 6 of the order dated 25.08.2023, inadvertently, on account of typographical error, an amount of Rs.4,19,796/- has been mentioned instead of amount of award i.e. Rs.8,39,592/-. He further submits that the said error in the order dated 25.08.2023 may be corrected.

¶22

3. The above submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶23

4. In view of the above, it is ordered that the amount i.e. Rs. 4,19,796/mentioned in paragraph 2 and 6 of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in MAC No.718/2021 be read as ‘Rs. 8,39,592/-’. The order dated 25.08.2023 is modified to the extent indicated above. The copy of this order be kept in the records of MAC No.718/2021.

¶24

5. With the above observation, this MCC is disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶27

Prakash

Smt. Lalita Baghel v. Bhagirathi Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalita Baghel v. Bhagirathi Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases