IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15679 of 2009 PARSURAM SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 3.9.2010 The original order was dictated in open Court. The second line of the first paragraph should be corrected and instead of word ‘AND’ the word ‘reversing’ should be substituted. There appear to be some typing mistakes in the order which are being clarified by the counsel for the respondents after the order was dictated. Accordingly it is submitted that there was a family partition which has been discussed in paragraph 2 of the writ application. The Court was given to understand that the family partition was by way of a suit. Apparently the Title Suit 145/38 of 1977 was filed by the respondent for entry of the revisional survey and not for partition. Paragraph No. 2 is thus clarified to this extent. At paragraph 3, there is a typing error and the word respondents should be deleted and replaced by the word petitioners. Finally at paragraph 4 there was confusion in the words between the ‘petitioners counsel’ and the ‘respondents counsel’ which would be apparent from my notes taken in this case. Therefore, I clarify to the extent that compromise petition in Case No. 91 of 1980-81 was 2 filed by Lalji Singh on behalf of Rup Singh and others. The corrections made aforesaid in the order dated 19.8.2010 do not affect the merits of the decision. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)