Smt Satula Devi v. Mr Rajeev Sharma & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 12 Jul 2024 · 2024:DHC:5171

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

CS(OS) 203/2022

2024:DHC:5171

civil other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed a Section 152 CPC application to correct a clerical error in its earlier judgment with the parties' consent, clarifying the plaintiff's case regarding alienation of family relations rather than property.

Full Text

CS(OS) 203/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 203/2022
SMT SATULA DEVI .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Alankriti, Adv.

VERSUS

MR RAJEEV SHARMA & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Mr. Pradhull Kumar and Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj, Advs. for D-1
Mr. D Abhinav Rao, Adv. for D-2 Mr. Nhati Kohli and Mr. Pratham Vik
Agarwal, Advs. for D-2(a) and (b)
Date of Decision: 12th July, 2024

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

(ORAL)

I.A. 7692/2023(Application under Section 152 of the CPC, 1908 for amendment in judgment dated 10.04.2023)

1. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendant no. 2A and 2B seeks correction in in paragraph ‘116’ of the judgment dated 10.04.2023. 1.[1] He seeks correction in the statement of the learned senior counsel representing the applicants, as recorded in the said paragraph.

2. The proposed correction has been shared by him with the counsel for the plaintiff who states that she has no objection to the correction proposed.

3. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties paragraph ‘116’ is corrected with the addition highlighted in terms thereof. The amended CS(OS) 203/2022 paragraph 116 shall read as under:

“116. I must state here that Mr. Nayar had argued that it is the contention of the plaintiff that, in 2017, when mental condition of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad had started deteriorating, Uma Devi, in connivance with the defendant No.2 and other individuals, started alienating the assets of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad. This submission of Mr. Nayar, is not in conformity with the averments made in the plaint, which I have reproduced above. To the contrary, it is the case of the late Satula Devi, that Uma Devi in connivance with the defendant No.2, had started alienating late Dr. Mahendra Prasad from all the members of his family, including the late Satula Devi. In other words, it is not stated in the plaint that Uma Devi in connivance with the defendant No.2, was alienating the properties of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad. In any case, late Satula Devi, having realized that Uma Devi in connivance with defendant No.2 is alienating late Dr. Mahendra Prasad away from her was also the time when late Satula Devi should have asserted her claim on the suit properties.”

4. This order will read along with the judgment dated 10.04.2023 with reference to paragraph ‘116’ therein.

5. The document signed by both the parties confirming the amendment proposed at paragraph ‘116’ is taken on record.

6. With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of.

7. The suit is no longer be listed before the Court.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 12, 2024/hp/sk

Smt Satula Devi v. Mr Rajeev Sharma & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation