t .t^::(^::'^'^'l%I^2-c/o^- !N_THE_HIGIL^S< RTj)FJODlCAtUREATB!LASPUR IN_THEMATTER_C : SECOND APPEAI.NO. 159 OF 2002 APPELLANTS: DECIDEDON 28.3.2005 1 •rf ^ ft-. RESPONDENTS: vs Ghanshyam Makhija, sori of Parinanand Makhija, aged about 39 years. . 2. Anil Kumar Makhija, son of Parmanand , Makhiia, aged abolut 35 years.' ;' ; '/ .: :' :. 3. Nemichand Makhija, son of Parnianand Makhija, aged aboiut 28 -years..' - -i: '.' •:, 4. Snit. Rukinani Devi, widow of Date Parmariand Makhija, aged about 60 years. 5. Smt. Rita PancfaWani, d/o of - Parmanand Makhija, aged about 30 years. 6. Smt. Charidra Devi, daughter of Pa.rmanand Ma.khij^a,^ aged about 42 years. ;: ^: • ! ': ; • , 1:: ; All residents bf Idhgtia '; Bhafa, Lakhe . Naga.r, Raipur. 1. Srat. SusUila ' Jadhw, i. widow of Late Manoftar RsQ dadhav, aged about @S :year&. :, ,. ,, , . . , ; .; 2. Ashote'K't-irffiar Jadlia.v, SQti .^ w -^ if of Late Manohar Rao Jadhav, aged about 41 years. 3. Kymari Asha Jadhav, d/o Late Manohar Rao Jadhav, aged aboyt 44 years, r/o Kelkarpara, Station Road, Raipur. 4. Smt. Bela Shinde, wife of Shri Arvind Shinde, -resident of Khera Pali Colony, Gwalior (M.P.) 5. Smt. Subha Jadhav, wife df Shri Dilip Jadhav, Khelkar Para, Raipur. 6. Kishore Kumar Jadhav, son of Late Manohar Rao Jadhav, aged about 39 years. 7. Smt. Pushpa Jadhav, widow of Late Arun Kumar, aged about 36 years. 8. Manoj Jadhav, son of Late Arun Kumar, aged about 2 years, Minor through next friend and mother Smt. Pushpa Jadhav. 9. Smt. Shubha Jadhav, widow of Late Dilip Yadav. 10. Sabu Jadhay, soh of Late Dilip Jadhav, aged ut- ..-..• • •'•••' •.'•••••.\ " about 4 years, Minor through next friend and mother Smt. Shubha Jadhav. APPLICATION UNDER SECa'IObN 15:2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROiCEOttRE. 1908 XI-HC-22; sn^TW fewsn^r shHi^ yf^a ^mw cr./° / 35^ •<11<(IM<1, »TnW16, RlCtltfy 3T1^?T M^cd ,^^C..^.J^ HTHCITStWltll ^ 2OT— 28.4.200S: Shri P.R. Patankar learnefcl Shri B.P, ShaFmaand Shti Heard. ' Perused the reoord ofSeitond This MCC has been fited CPC for correotiqn of the typog) passed by this Court on 28.3.200p the respondents.. This Court on 28.3.2005 the measurement of suit property) 8000 sq.ft. as is clear from the c^rtified this application has also been ^i have no objection in allowing the| In the circumstanoes, the| property as mentioned in paFa^raph corrected to be read as 8000 sq. Let a copy of this orde 159/2002. <hi-lit^''fl-i KWftTffrs'<3 <Ri-t4i<. %3lf^T3TI^T oounsel for the applicants. i HS Patel for the respondents. lAppealNo. 159/2002. by the respondents underseotiDn 152ofthe •aphjcal ercor in paragraph 14 of the judgment which has been pointed out by the counsel for (lismissed the second appeal'No. 159/2002 and 1 has been wrongly typed as 800 sq.ft in place of copy of the impugned juc^ment. Copy of [upplied to the cQunsel for the applicants who Isame. MCC is allowed and the measurement of suit 14 ofthejudgmentdated 28.3.2005 is ft. in place of 800 sq. ft. '^ (ift^^-) be placed in the original reoord of SA No. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra| ^ Judge f