M.G.SHANTHKUMAR Vs. N.JAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court in partly allowing the petitioners' appeal in RFA No.604/2005 by the Judgment dtd. 7/9/2021 has set aside the Judgment and decree dtd. 11/1/2005 in OS No. 3992/2001 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court'] and has remanded the suit for fresh disposal with certain observations. This Court has called upon the civil Court to decide the suit expeditiously and in any event within the outer limit of nine [9] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Judgment dtd. 7/9/2021. The present petition is filed for review of this judgment dtd. 7/9/2021.

(2.) Sri. R.V.S. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court must review the Judgment dtd. 7/9/2021 because of certain obvious and indisputable typographical errors in mentioning the details of certain proceedings, the subject sale deeds and dates, and because this Court's opinion that the suit must be remitted for retrial under Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'] is without considering the law exposited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,(2018) 10 Supreme Court Cases 484 . Sri. R.V.S. Naik elaborates his submissions on these two grounds thus:

(3.) Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that the respondents would not contest the typographical errors that have been pointed out. This Court could correct such typographical errors in exercise of the jurisdiction under sec. 152 of CPC, but such errors cannot be a reason for review of the judgment dtd. 7/9/2021. Therefore, though this Court may correct the typographical errors pointed out by the other side, this Court cannot review the judgment dtd. 7/9/2021 because of such errors.