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".