The Court allowed a miscellaneous petition to correct a typographical error in a previous judgment, permitting the withdrawal of the writ petition and liberty to refile.
Petitioner permitted to withdraw writ petition and prosecute matter afresh.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO
W.P.M.P.NO.37644 OF 2011 AND W.P.NO.23553 OF 2011
ORDER:
In view of an error that has crept into the record from the stage of inception typographically, in showing the name of the writ petitioner as ‘K. Ravinder Reddy’ instead of ‘K. Ravi Chandra Reddy’, the present miscellaneous petition is filed for carrying out the said correction in the order passed in W.P.No.23553 of 2011 on 27-08-2011. Since, the mistake has crept in all through the record including the Vakalatnama, I consider it appropriate to permit the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and grant liberty to him to prosecute the matter afresh.
The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to prosecute the matter afresh. No costs.
Registry is directed to return the original papers filed along with the writ petition by substituting the same with Photostat copies duly certified by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Nooty Ramamohan Rao, J
mrk 09-12-2011
K. Ravi Chandra Reddy (identified as K. Ravinder Reddy in error)
Nooty Ramamohan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
