Calcutta High Court
Kaberi Pvt. Ltd vs Shrimati Ila Basu & Ors on 14 March, 2014
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
EOS No.18 of 1991
TA No.421 of 2007
With
TS No.167 of 1981
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
KABERI PVT. LTD.
VERSUS
SHRIMATI ILA BASU & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 14th March, 2014 Appearance:
Mr. R.N. Jhunjhunwala, Adv.
Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv.
The Court: This matter has been mentioned by the defendant No.9 for correction of the typographical errors occurred in the judgment dated 9th October, 2013. It appears that there are certain typographical errors which needs to be corrected. Accordingly, by consent of the parties the following corrections are to be effected in the original judgment dated 9th October, 2013.
At page 4, in the tenth line of the original judgment "26th June, 1992" shall be corrected as "26th June, 1982".
At page 5, in the last paragraph of the original judgment "26th August, 1992" should read as "26th August, 1993".2
At page 11, in the first line of the original judgment "4th September, 1978" shall be corrected as "21st September, 1978" and in the last paragraph seventh line from the bottom "Rs.5100/-" shall be corrected as "Rs.5001/-".
At page 42 of the original judgment in the last but one line in the last paragraph the word "plaintiff" shall be replaced by "defendants" and in the last line the word "defendants" in red ink shall read as "plaintiff" and at page 43 the word "plaintiffs" appearing at the third line of the continuing paragraph shall read as "plaintiff". The paragraph as corrected shall read as follows: "The involvement of Ram Niranjan Jhunjhunwala in dealing with the matters on behalf of the owners both with the original defendant no.9 and the present plaintiff would in the submission of Mr. Sinha fulfill the requirement on conditions that would entitle a person to the defence under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as overwhelming, preponderance of probabilities is in favour of the defendants that the plaintiff had due notice to the contract being agreement dated 21st September, 1978 (Exhibit 14) and part-performance thereof at the time before several purported deeds of conveyance were executed in favour of the plaintiff."
At pages 80 to 82 of the original judgment numbering of the paragraphs shall be deleted. Accordingly, marking of paragraph nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall stand deleted.
3
At page 89 of the original judgment in the first continuing paragraph in the last but one line the word "instruction" shall be corrected as "instrument".
The aforesaid corrections shall be incorporated in the original judgment and order dated 9th October, 2013. Upon corrections of the original judgment, a duly certified copy shall be issued to the parties. Parties are directed to return the earlier certified copies in order to enable the Department to issue fresh certified copy of the judgment. The Computer Server Section is also directed to incorporate the said corrections in the server copy.
It appears that at pages 19 and 20 of the certified copy of the judgment issued by the Department, there are discrepancies with the original judgment and on verification I find that while making the certified copy the Department has committed a mistake as instead of "forfeiture" it has gone down as "forfeature". Registrar, Original Side, is directed to enquire into the matter and must ensure that such mistakes do not occur in future and the certified copies are issued strictly on the basis of the judgment delivered and must conform to original judgment.
The parties shall not use the earlier certified copies in any proceeding. The certified copies to be issued in terms of this order after incorporating the corrections as recorded in this order shall be made over to the parties upon return of the previous copies. 4
The Registrar, High Court, Original Side and all parties concerned are to act on the basis of the server copy.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) sp/