HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(Art.2271 No.5990/2009 PETITJONER RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shri Mang!i Prasad Gupta, Aged about 49 years, Occupation-Business, R/o Mahalpara Road, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Versus 1 Vinod Gupta, S/o Late Shri Shiv Ratan Gupta, aged about 57years, Occupation Business. 2 Smt. Krishna Gupta, Wd/o Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 48 years 3 Smt. Jyoti Gupta, D/o Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 28 years, 4 Deepak Prabhat years 5 Suraj@ Banti Gupta, S/o Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 20 years 6 Neha Gupta, D/o Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 17 years, Minor through Mother Smt. Krishna Gupta Wd/o Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged 48 years Aii R/o Ward No.09, Mahalpara Road, Baikunthpur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJND1A Gupta, S/oLate Shri Gupta, aged about 25 Appearance: Shri D.N. Prajapati, Counsel forthe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (22.10.2009) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.10.2009 passed in Civii Suit N0.12-A/2006 by li Civil Judge Class-i, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this writ petition. W.P.fArt.227) No.5990/2009 shyna ~7 " By the impugned order, the iearned trial Judge has dismissed an application filed under Sections 151 &152 of the Code of Civii Procedure, whereby, the petitioner/plaintiff had prayed for correction in the deposition sheet. A perusal of the records of the writ petition would show that in para 30 of the evidence of Ashok Kumar Gupta (plaintiff/PW- 1/petitioner herein), it has been mentioned that '"q? 'c^^ ^t t ^) swft ^ ^ ^-?r ^M ^ ^ ^ i:f7Tcft y^Hici^i TfRf^ ^q ^ S^cRSZt ^ ^ 3^7 ^T^ ^N^ WR^ ^t fNRf 3mft ^T 8TT" The petitioner contended that the word "^f' has wrongly been mentioned there which should have been the word TRRT and it has happened on account of typographical error. The petitioner/ptaintiff has not taken any ground ot' malafide by making aliegations either against the Presiding Officer of the Court or against the Deposition Writer. The deposition has been recorded by computer typing and there is no over writing or apparent manipulation or interpolation in the deposition sheet. The deposition sheet in all pages contains the signature of the witness and it also contains a certification of the Court in the form as "7mi? ^f W^- ^TCT 'TO i ^t ?RT ^?R f^n 7TOT I" The iearned trial Judge has said that such corrections, as prayed by the petltioner/plaintiff cannot be made under Sections 151 &152C.P.C. I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned triai Judge. The learned trial Judge has taken a correct view in the matter, which does not require interference by this Court. The petition has not merit. The same is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itseif.^___^— Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge