( 1 ) PRESENT is an application filed by legal representatives of appellant jot Ram under Section 151, 152 and 153 of CPC for making correction in the proceedings and in the judgment and decree dated 14th November, 2002 passed in aforesaid appeal. ( 2 ) IT is stated that the above appeal was filed by the father of applicants i. e. late Shri Jot Ram son of Molhar. Another appeal bearing no. RFA 716/1987 was filed by another Jot Ram who is son of Shri Rati Ram. Mr. H s Yadav, was the counsel in both the appeals. It is stated that the appellant in appeal no. 717/1987 had died on 27th March, 1991 and the legal heirs i. e. the applicants instructed their counsel to move an application for substituting them on record. Accordingly, Shri H S Yadav, Advocate moved an application being CM No. 1058/1991 for the said purpose. It is stated that due to bona fide mistake of counsel aforesaid application was moved in RFA 716/1987 instead of RFA 717/87. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 10th April, 1992 substituting legal heirs of Jot Ram son of molhar in RFA 716/87 whereas in the said case the appellant was Jot Ram son of Rati Ram. It is stated that both the appeals have already been decided by the judgment dated 14th November, 2002. It is alleged that during the drafting of the execution petition applicant came to know about substitution being done in different appeal. The said fact was also got confirmed on inspection of the court record. It is alleged that there is no negligence on the part of the applicants/legal heirs of Jot Ram s/o Molhar and the mistake has been committed by their lawyer. It is prayed that necessary correction be made otherwise applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid application is not opposed by Shri H P Sahu, Advocate for the respondent. ( 4 ) WE have considered the application and perused the record. It is prayed that necessary correction be made otherwise applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid application is not opposed by Shri H P Sahu, Advocate for the respondent. ( 4 ) WE have considered the application and perused the record. ( 5 ) IN view of the reasoning stated in the application which is supported by the affidavit of applicant and the no objection given by the counsel for the respondents and position emerging from record including the error which is only typographical in nature, we allow the present application and order that RFA No. 716/1987 written on CM 1058/98, order dated 10. 4. 1992 and amended memo of parties be struck out and in its place RFA No. 717/1987 be recorded. We further order that aforesaid CM/order/amended memo of parties be placed in the file of aforesaid appeal i. e. RFA 717/87 and be treated as having dealt and disposed off in the said appeal. Application stands disposed off accordingly.