Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2529 of 2006
PETITIONER:
BABU LAL & ORS
RESPONDENT:
GRAM PANCHAYAT, DEROLI JAT & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
I.A.No.2
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2006
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
IA for correcting a few typographical mistakes in the judgment dt.31.10.2007 is allo
wed.
The following corrections be carried out in the Judgment :-
1. Para 2 at page 3 (10th line)
The line starting from "Section 443 of 1961 Act................ could not be distu
rbed" be
read as "Section 4(3) of 1961 Act................".
2. Para 2 at page 3
The 2nd last line ".....Gram Panchayat has not redeemed the suit land thus
right of
redemption has been lost" be read as "Mortgagors have not redeemed the suit land thus the ri
ght of
redemption has been lost."
3. Para 2 at page 3 (last line)
The line "The Trial Court dismissed the suit" be read as "The Trial Court decreed
the
suit"
4. Para 4 at page 6 (7th line)
In the 7th line at page 6 starting from "It is relevant to point out that th
ough the Civil
Judge, Mahendergarh had set aside the judgment and decree dated 3.2.1990 as well as the
subsequent confirmation order dated 28.7.1992 of the Dist. Judge........" the words "judgmen
t and
decree dated 3.2.1990 be read as "judgment and decree dated 3.2.92".
5. Para 4 at page 6 (3rd line from bottom)
In the line starting from "The effect of the direction of the Additional Dist.Judge
is that Civil
Suit No.267/2000/1992 filed on 28.10.1992 is now restored and the additional sub-Judge is to
try the
case from the stage existed on 28.11.1991", date 28.11.1991 be read as "28.10.1992".