which is incorrect
and is a typographical error & the correct dated is
21.03.2005. PW-2 further deposed that Ex PW-2/6 at para ... mentioned regarding the date of letter of
Attornment is not a typographical error. She further
deposed that this reference had been given in the legal
Ramesh Chander Gupta vs Ram Niwas Gupta on 18 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF
deposed that due to a typographical error the date of the will was
typed as 07.07.2010 instead of 07.07.1998. He further deposed that in view ... deposed that though the
will was executed on 07.07.1998, due to typographical error the same was typed
as 07.07.2010. In his cross-examination, he deposed
deposed that due to a typographical error the date of the will was
typed as 07.07.2010 instead of 07.07.1998. He further deposed that in view ... deposed that though the
will was executed on 07.07.1998, due to typographical error the same was typed
as 07.07.2010. In his cross-examination, he deposed
deposed that due to a typographical error the date of the will was
typed as 07.07.2010 instead of 07.07.1998. He further deposed that in view ... deposed that though the
will was executed on 07.07.1998, due to typographical error the same was typed
as 07.07.2010. In his cross-examination, he deposed
discrepancy regarding the date of return memos is only a typographical
error and as such, it should not be allowed shadow the merits ... mention of date of return memos
as 19.06.2019 is only a typographical error on the part of the complainant and
Ct. Case No. 6848/2019
date of receipt of samples in the Laboratory reports is
typographical error. The argument is further supported by referring
to the Code Batch number, which ... while
discussing at Page 18, merely mentioned that this was a
typographical error. The petitioner herein has seriously contested
this aspect and it was incumbent
same in his cross-
examination by deposing that it was typographical error of the
lawyer and merely because of typographical error, the entire case ... understanding between the parties.
39. Merely because there is a typographical error in the details
of the accused in the pre-summoning evidence
affirmative and thus, the same
also cannot be termed as a typographical error and accordingly, the
present complaint is not maintainable being filed ... Apex Court observed that "...the term typographical error is
defined as a mistake made in the printed/typed material during a printing/typing
process
counsel, who prepared the complaint,
actually year was 2003; similar typographical error was done for writing 2
months period of confinement instead of actual period ... police. She also
explained that in the complaint there was typographical error of recording
the year 2002 in place of actual year
