HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HONSBLE SHRl RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUJVSAR SINHA. J. 'f APPyCAMTS '^' IVi.C.C.No.360of2008 1) Dropadl Bai, wldow of Late Sahtram Chouhan, aged about 53 years, 2) Shivshankar, son of Late Santram Chouhan, aged about 15 years, 3} Manoj Kumar, aged about 11 years, son of Sate Santram Chouhan, 4) Kundan Kumar, aged about 11 years, son of late Santram Chouhan, 5) Mahaveer, son of Late Santram Chouhan, aged about 05 years Applicants No. 2 to 5 are the minors, through their next frlend (Mother) Smt. Dropati Bai (i.e. the ApplicantNo.1) All are residents Rovindvan, Tahsil District Raipur (C.G.) Versus of viltage Bilaigarh, NON-APPLICANTS 1) Santosh Kumar, son of Late Mahtar, aged about 30 years, 2) Smt. Sona Bai', widow of Late Mahtar, aged about 50 years, 3) Dasaram, aged about 50 years, son of Bodhram Sahu ASI are resident of village Rovindvan. Tah Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF T^POGRAPHSC MSSTAKE iH ORDER PASSED !N W.P. N0.413S/2Q05. ON i¥fii 11.09.2006 Presenf: Shri D.R. Minz. learned counsel for the petitioners. '%^;,,^' ORDER i padma (11 November,200S) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri D.R. Minz, learned counsel forthe petitioners Is heard. 2) Petitjoners, who were petitioners in W.P. No.4139/2005 are seeking correction of typographieal error in the order dated 11.09.2006 passed in W.P. No.4139/2005. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the order dated 11.09.2006, it came to be mentioned that defendant No. 2 died during the pendency of the suit whereas in fact, it was defendant No.1 Mehattar, who died during the pendency of the suit. 4) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and on a perusal pf the document filed by the petitioners in W.P. No.4139/2005, we are satisfied that the mention of the fact that defendant No.2 in the petitioner's/ptaintiff suit died during the pendency of the sult came to be mentioned out of mistake whereas in fact, it was defendant No. 1 Mahattar who dled during the pendency of the suit. 5) in this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed and the orderdated 11.09.2006 passed inWrit Petition No. 4139/2005 is modified to the extent that in the body of the order wherever the reference is made to defendant No.2, it shall be read as reference to defendant No.1 Mahattar. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge