Disposed
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sogy Peter
DRTMA/144/2025
What the court decided
AI extract
Outcome
Disposed
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
¶1
Fair Order
¶2
07.08.2025
¶3
MA/144/2025 IN OA/623/2013
¶4
Ms. Ary represented the counsel for the petitioner.
¶5
- Applicant Bank filed the present petition for correcting survey number of Schedule D property in the recovery certificate and corresponding amendments in the OA and final order.
¶6
- According to the petitioner bank due to typographical error, the survey number of the property detailed in schedule ‘D’ property to the OA 623/2013 was mentioned as Sy. No.64/7 & 4, Re. Sy. No.330/2-2 instead of Sy. No.64/7, Re. Sy. No.330/3/2 and therefore, the above survey numbers are mentioned in the final order of this Tribunal dated 11.04.2017. It is seen from the perusal of the ‘D’ schedule of the OA, the survey number and Re. survey number for the aforesaid property is mentioned as Sy. No.64/7 & 4, Re. Sy. No.330/2-2 instead of Sy. No.64/7, Re. Sy. No.330/3/2. Therefore, the same survey number is mentioned in the schedule ‘D’ to the final order as well as the recovery certificate DRC No.25/2018. Since the above said mistake happened due to typographical error, it is just and necessary to amend the schedule ‘D’ of the OA as well as that of the final order dated 11.04.2017 and also in the recovery certificate in DRC 25/2018 as “Sy. No.64/7, Re. Sy. No.330/3/2”.
¶7
- Accordingly, the petition, MA No.144/2025 stands allowed. The Registry is directed to carryout the aforesaid amendment in the schedule ‘D’ of the OA 623/2013 and correct the final order dated 11.04.2017 and to send an intimation certificate to the Recovery Officer.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- applicant
Applicant Bank
Coram
AI extract
Presiding Officer
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court