instead of
Rs.68,99,590/-. It is a typographical mistake and it
should be read as Rs.68,99,590/- in para
instead of
Rs.68,99,590/-. It is a typographical mistake and it
should be read as Rs.68,99,590/- in para
petitioner in service beyond 50 years and it was a typographical
mistake. The fact remains that the Administrative committee, though resolved to
permit the petitioner ... cannot seek a
judicial review over such a decision by citing the typographical error which crept in
the order passed
Assessment Year 2000-2001 is a
mistake. It cannot be said that the petitioner was an aggrieved person
against the said order passed ... evident that it is a typographical mistake. Ordinarily, for
such mistakes committed while filing the Writ Petitions, we would have
permitted the petitioner to amend
delay is neither wilful nor wanton in seeking an
amendment, as the mistake that had crept in, in para No.15 (a) of the plaint ... institution of the "plaint". Apparently, it is a
typographical mistake or mistake by over-sight committed while typing the
plaint. A person
been passed in these Writ Petition and
that there are few typographical mistakes in the said order dated
24.11.2021. She submits that in the second ... respondents.
6. Recording the submissions of both the counsel, the typographical
mistake is corrected and the additional references are added as follows
Rule 13 in the above paragraph appears to be a
typographical mistake. The respective counsels agree it should be read to
mean only Rule
According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it was a
typographical mistake crept in the judgment and the same may be ordered
date of
hearing was mentioned as 09.10.2019, which is a typographical mistake. It
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
each of the year, it appears to be a
typographical mistake. Impugned orders have been preceded by notices in DRC
01 which according
