Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shweta vs Manish on 29 September, 2015
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION(C) NO.485 OF 2015
SHWETA ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
MANISH ...RESPONDENT
O R D E R
This transfer petition has already been disposed of by this Court's order dated 21.09.2015.
By oral mentioning, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that inadvertently, a typographical error crept in by incorporating the words “ex-parte decree is passed” instead of the words “ex-parte decree is set aside” in the last paragraph of the aforesaid order.
In view of the above, we order that the words “ex-parte decree is passed” should be read for “ex-parte decree is set aside”.
......................J [M. Y. EQBAL] ......................J [C. NAGAPPAN] Signature Not Verified NEW DELHI;
Digitally signed bySanjay Kumar Date: 2015.09.30 SEPTEMBER 29, 2015.
17:36:19 IST Reason:
ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Petition (Civil) No.485/2015 SHWETA Petitioner(s) VERSUS MANISH Respondent(s) Date : 29/09/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jay Kishor Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This transfer petition has already been disposed of by this Court's order dated 21.09.2015.
By oral mentioning, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that inadvertently, a typographical error crept in by incorporating the words “ex-parte decree is passed” instead of the words “ex-parte decree is set aside” in the last paragraph of the aforesaid order.
In view of the above, we order that the words “ex-parte decree is passed” should be read for “ex-parte decree is set aside”.
(Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed Order is placed on the file)