Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. S.K.Medhi, learned Counsel for the learned Counsel for the a pplicant and Mr. P.Sen learned Counsel for the O.P. This Misc.application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C.has been filed praying for striking out the name of respondent No. 2, who has been inadvertent ly impleaded in place of his wife and father. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said respondent No. 2 died during the pendency of the ap peal before the Ist appellate Court and the legal representatives were duly subs tituted during pendency of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inadvertent typing e rror may be allowed to be corrected by striking out the name of respondent No. 2 in the memo of appeal and by allowing insertion of the name of his wife and father as indicated in paragraph 6 of the application as respondent No. 2 and 2(A) respectively. Considering the facts and circumstances, the name of respondent No. 2 is allowed to be struke off. As prayed for , the newly impleaded respondent as shown in paragraph 6 of the petition be inserted in the memo of appeal. As prayed for on behalf of the applicant the name of respondent No. 5, who has s ince expired be struked off from the case title. Misc. case stands disposed o f.