Allowed

Pratima Banik v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC8 May 2017WP(C)/372/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Tripura corrected a typographical mistake in the cause title of an I.A. and W.P. allowing the petitioner to be described as the wife of Sri Tapas Banik and directing consequential amendments to the related judgment.

What did the court decide?

Substitution of petitioner's description in the cause title of W.P.(C) No.372 of 2016 and consequential correction of the judgment and order.

Pratima Banik Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

I.A. No.01 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.372 of 2016

¶2

Noting by Officer or Advocate	Serial No	Date	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
	21	.09.2017	BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 8. None appears for the respondents No.1 & 2 despite due notice from this court. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a typographical mistake had entered into the writ petition and that was not noticed before the judgment and order was passed. Now by this petition, the petitioner has prayed for correction of the entry in respect of the husband of the petitioner. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 8 does not raise any objection. In view of this, in the cause title of W.P.(C) No.372 of 2016 the petitioner’s description shall be substituted by the following entry in lieu of the earlier entry: “Smt. Pratima Banik, wife of Sri Tapas Banik, resident of Santipara, near Siyaram Oil Mill, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Sub-Division- Agartala, District-West Tripura......Petitioner” As consequence of such change, the cause title of the judgment and order shall be corrected by the authority of this order. This order shall form part of the judgment and order dated 08.05.2017 delivered in W.P.(C) No.372 of 2016. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE

¶3

Sujay

¶4

Page 1 of 1

Pratima Banik v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Banik v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ramakant Pachauri

Hangani Tripura Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Kamal Tripura Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Akehir Miah Palwan And 6 Ors. Vs L.a. Collector And Another

National Ins. Co.Ltd Vs Garmansri Tripura and Anr.

Malay Chakraborty Vs the District Magistrate and Collector and Ors.