This order partially allowed a correction application seeking amendments in a judgment dated 08.03.2021, granting a word change while rejecting a second substitution.
Partial allowance of correction application to replace 'whether' with 'with' in the impugned judgment.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLR No. 36 of 2020 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate, for the respondents. The learned counsel for the revisionist has filed a Correction Application No. 1777/2021, seeking correction in the final determination made by this Court by the judgment dated 08.03.2021. There are two corrections, which are sought by the revisionist in the second last para of the judgment, particularly, that as contained in the 9thline, where the word “whether” has been used, which has been sought to be corrected as “with”. The same would stand allowed. The second correction, which has been sought in the 12thline of the second last para for changing the word “or” by substituting it with the word “and”, that stand rejected. Accordingly, the Correction Application is partially allowed. The word “whether” in the second last para of the judgment would be read as “with”. (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 06.04.2021 Mahinder/ |
Revisionist
Respondents
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
