Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: typographical mistake in Avinash vs The Punjab State Federation Of ... on 30 June, 2015Matching Fragments
19. The contention of the complainants that there was no increase in the cost of land is of no significance. In fact as is evident from Annexure OP-4, wherein the Opposite Party has given the details of increase in price under various heads, there is no increase in the cost of land but increase in the cost of other items and, therefore, the argument of the complainants is of no avail.
20. As regards wrong calculation of by the Opposite Party, in Exhibit OP-5 (Page 122), the Opposite Party has clarified that it was a typographical mistake. There is force in the contention of the Opposite Party. In case, we accept the contention of the complainants, then the price of the flat, in question, would work out to 1297 sq. ft. ÷ 9 = 114.11 Sq. Yards @Rs.2528.80 Sq. Yards = Rs.3,64,485.17 i.e. significantly lesser than what it was tentatively fixed. The floor-wise price for Category-I flat was shown as Rs.33,10,000/- and it could be only if the rate was 2528.80 per Sq. feet and not 2528.80 per Sq. yard. Thus, the contention of the Opposite Party that it was only on account of typographical mistake that cost was shown to be calculated in square yards but actually, the same was calculated in square feet, is correct.
6. In view of the above, the application for staying the operation of letter dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure C-7) is dismissed being infructuous.
7. On the other hand, the Opposite Party also moved two separate applications, on 10.06.2015 and 15.06.2015, to place, on record, two additional affidavits of Mr. Sewa Singh, Superintending Engineer alongwith certain annexures.
8. The application moved on 10.06.2015 by the Opposite Party, was to the effect that it was only on account of typographical mistake that cost was shown to be calculated in square yards but actually the same was calculated in square feet. In support of this application, the Opposite Party sought to place, on record, the affidavit of Mr. Sewa Singh, its Superintending Engineer.