CM(M) 680/2008 Siddharth Mehta v. SB Sarkar Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: April 28, 2009 Date of Order: May 12, 2009 + CM Nos.15967 & 15969 of 2008 in CM(M) 680/2008 % 12.05.2009 Siddharth Mehta ...Petitioner Through : Mr. A. Asthana, Advocate Versus S.B. Sarkar ...Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Bhaduri, Advocate JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER CM 15969 of 2008 1. This application has been made by the applicant/petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the CM No.15967 of 2008 for modification of order dated 10th September 2008. 2. In view of the submissions made therein, the application is allowed and delay in filing the CM 15967 of 2008 is condoned. 3. The application stands disposed of. CM 15967 of 2008 1. This application has been made by the petitioner under Section 152 read with Section 151 CPC for modification of order dated 10th September 2008 passed by this Court. CM(M) 680/2008 Siddharth Mehta v. SB Sarkar Page 2 Of 2 2. It is stated in the application that this Court in the order dated 10th September 2008 has recorded in paragraph (2) that petitioner had initiated proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act seeking restoration of electricity. However, such a petition was not filed by the petitioner and the reference to petitioner in paragraph (2) at different places was therefore contrary to record. The petitioner was also not a party in CM(M) 312 of 2007 and no assurance was given by counsel for the petitioner (tenant) that he would deposit the rent @ Rs.2200/- per month with ARC and mentioning of this by the Court was an error apparent on the face of record. 3. A perusal of order and record would show that the petitioner and his sister Ms.Mansi Mehta had been pursuing different suit/petitions in respect of the same premises and for that reason an error crept in the order. It is ordered that in paragraph (2) of the order dated 10th September 2008 wherever the word ‘petitioner’ finds mention, it should be read as ‘petitioner’s sister Ms. Mansi Mehta’. Similarly, in paragraph (3) also wherever the word ‘petitioner’ appears it should be read as ‘petitioner’s sister Ms. Mansi Mehta’ except in the portion quoted from CM (M) 312 of 2007. The above typographical, therefore, be corrected in the order dated 10th September 2008. I find no other error in the order. 4. The application stands disposed of with above modifications. May 12, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd