Oral order correcting a clerical error in an earlier order by restricting substitution of respondent no. 16 only and directing the previous order to be read after correction.
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.
Patna High Court MJC No.4286 of 2014 (4) dt.22-04-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4286 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3995 of 2006 ============================================== Jang Bahadur Pandey & Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 4. 22-04-2015 In order dated 18.03.2015, passed in this case, due to inadvertence in the last but one paragraph, there is reference to respondent no. 7 and notice to be issued to him. The said line should read to file substitution petition in respect of respondent no. 16 alone.
Learned counsel states that he has already filed application (I.A. No. 2308/2015) for substituting respondent no. 16. Let it be proceeded with and the order dated 18.03.2015 passed in this case be read, accordingly.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
Rajeev/-
U
Jang Bahadur Pandey & Ors.
The State of Bihar & Ors.
Navaniti Prasad Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
