date
mentioned in the letter of 02.01.2012 as 31.12.2017 was a
typographical error. The respondent herein was also
informed that an advertisement was to appear ... occasions the University did not
notice what it calls "a typographical error or a mistake
of a most trifling nature".
(V) Clause
present before the court. The further contention that there
is typographical error that instead of 21.04.2019 it is typed
as 21.04.2018 in the affidavit ... language. Therefore,
contention of the judgment debtor that there is a
typographical error that instead of 21.04.2019 it was typed
14
as 21.04.2018 cannot
mistake committed certainly
does not come within the perview of a typographical
error. The term “typographical error” is defined as a
mistake made ... obligation to do cannot be
called as a typographical error. As a consequence the
plea of typographical error cannot be entertained in
this regard since
mistake committed certainly
does not come within the perview of a typographical
error. The term “typographical error” is defined as a
mistake made ... obligation to do cannot be
called as a typographical error. As a consequence the
plea of typographical error cannot be entertained in
this regard since
amendment sought for was a bonafide
amendment as in fact a typographical error had crept in the
prayer clause of the plaint wherein erroneously possession ... stood claimed by the plaintiffs.
The reason as to why this typographical error crept in, is not
too far to be searched for. The records
view to derive a benefit and
that had the plea of typographical error been correct then the application for
amendment would have been filed immediately ... doubt that the amendment
prayed for is not on account of typographical error besides the petitioners-
defendants have also failed to plead or prove exercise
time, would always be due to
want of due diligence.
A typographical error is not an occurrence unknown to
the legal proceedings. In fact ... typographical error could occur
at any place and despite due diligence; and if at all an
illustration is required in this regard, a look
Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to correct the
typographical error with regard to age of the first plaintiff and
to include ... that the
amendment sought with regard to age, it is only typographical
error, instead of mentioning 67 years, it is mentioned as 35
years
again cross-examined on 26.11.2014.
During the cross-examination, some typographical errors made in
his cross-examination. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition ... learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that there are typographical errors in the recording of
deposition of P.W.1, whose evidence
fact that the defendant was seeking thereunder a
correction of typographical errors in his affidavit in evidence. The
trial court has dismissed the defendant ... Quite evidently the defendant indeed merely
sought correction of typographical errors in his affidavit in
evidence where the dominant averment on multiple occasions was
that
