Laxmidhar Mahalik v. Chinmaya Mishra
Case brief
What is this about?
It appears for the Office note, in order…
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.
OJC No.2992 of 2001
- 30.09.2019 It appears for the Office note, in order No.16 dated 11.09.2019 passed in I.A. No.101 of 2019, there appears some inadvertent typographical errors.
It appears that while mentioning about substitution of legal heirs of ‘petitioner No.3’, inadvertently it is mentioned as ‘opposite party No.3’.
Therefore, wherever in order No.16 dated 11.09.2019 ‘opposite party No.3’ appears, the same should be read as ‘petitioner No.3’.
Necessary corrections be carried out in Order No.16 dated 11.09.2019 accordingly.
Consolidated cause title in respect of PLRs of deceased opposite parties 7 and 8 is accepted.
.................................
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
ss
Coram
K.R. Mohapatra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court