The Patna High Court orally directed that a clerical error in the pagination of an earlier order, where case No. 40 was typewritten instead of the correct case No. 46, be read correctly.
Direction to read the correct case number in the earlier order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.852 of 2018
======================================================
Dasharath Kumar Sah @ Dasharath Kr. Sah
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha- GA1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
While passing the order on 18.01.2018 in the writ petition, ‘P.R. Case No.40 of 2017-18’ has been wrongly typed whereas the correct case is ‘P.R. Case No.46 of 2017-18’. The said correction be read in the order passed on 18.01.2018.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
Sunil/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a clerical error in the case number of an earlier order needs to be corrected by reading it correctly.
Whether the correction of the case number in the earlier order should be incorporated into the current record.
Dasharath Kumar Sah
The State Of Bihar
Rajendra Menon
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
