Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1228 (MP)

Fakhruddin v. Revenue Department

2015-12-09

S.R.WAGHMARE, SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. By this review petitioner under Order 47 read with rule (1) of CPC for reviewing order dated 11.9.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.8365/2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners Fakruddin, Zulfikar and Suman Devi jointly filed Writ Petition No.8365/2013 seeking mutation of their names over the land bearing survey No.137B, Sher Saray, Post Office Road, Ratlam. The petition was accepted and directions were issued to the Collector, Ratlam to pass order of mutation within a period of two months on production of the copy of the order passed by this Court, before him. However due to typographical error in the order passed in writ petition the number “3” (petitioner No.3- Suman Devi) was left out, which reads as : “The prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioners No.1 and 2 over the land bearing survey No.137B, Sehar Saray, Post Office Road, Ratlam.” 3. By typographical error as it is evident, the respondent were directed to mutate only the name of petitioners No.1 and 2, whereas the same relief was also claimed by petitioner No.3, Suman Devi. Contempt Petition bearing No.166/2015 was also filed by the petitioners jointly thereafter and the Court finding that there was a substantial non-compliance on the part of the respondent/State, disposed of the contempt petition on 16.9.2015 with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within 30 days. Despite such orders in favour of the petitioner, the order passed by the Tahsildar on 19.9.2015 indicated only the name of the petitioners No.1 and 2 in record, since the order passed by this Court in the writ petition did not mention petitioner No.3, whereas in the contempt petition also the cause title mentioned the name of the petitioner No.3 and hence the present appeal. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.3 Suman Devi has been deprived of the benefit of the order and prayed that the petition be allowed and the typographical error occurred in the order passed by the writ Court be amended suitably. 5. On pursuing the record and submissions of the Counsel we find that the error is apparent on the face of the record. We had also called for the record of the Writ Petition No.8365/2013 and the Contempt Petition No.166/2015. 5. On pursuing the record and submissions of the Counsel we find that the error is apparent on the face of the record. We had also called for the record of the Writ Petition No.8365/2013 and the Contempt Petition No.166/2015. We find that pleading of the petitioner is genuine and the error is evident on the face of the record. In view of the above, this review petition is allowed, the order dated 11.9.2013 passed in the Writ Petition No.8365/2013 shall now read as : “The prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 over the land bearing survey No.137B, Sehar Saray, Post Office Road, Ratlam.” 6. It would also be apposite to mention at this stage, that the writ petition, the contempt petition as well as the present application has been jointly moved by the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 throughout. In this view also, this review petition is allowed and hence it is directed that the benefit of the orders accrues to petitioner No.3 Suman Devi also. A copy of this order be retained in the Writ Petition No.8365/2013 as well as in the Contempt Petition No.166/2015. 7. With the aforesaid, this review petition is allowed to the extent mentioned herein above. No order as to costs.