SUNIL AHUJA,J - (1.) THE aforementioned revision petition was decided by me vide order dated 26.3.1999.
(2.) THE respondents have moved this application, CM No. 26 of 1998-99, under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking suitable modifications in the operative portion of the aforesaid order dated 26.3.1999. They have stated in this application that the revision petition was actually dismissed by me vide order dated 26.3.1999 and that the word 'accepted' happened to be used inadvertently instead of the word 'dismissed' in the concluding lines of the operative paragraph of the order dated 26.3.1999. It has been prayed by the respondents that the order dated 26.3.1999 may be suitably modified and the word 'accepted' as used in the concluding lines of the operative portion of the order be substituted by the word 'dismissed'. Notice of this application was issued to the District Attorney. No reply has been filed by the petitioner-State.
(3.) I have heard counsel for both parties and have carefully perused the order dated 26.3.1999. The counsel for the respondents submitted that quite obviously the operative paragraph of the order leaves no manner of doubt that the Court intended to dismiss the revision petition and that the revision petition had in fact, been dismissed but that the word 'accepted' is either a typing error or happened to be used in the order inadvertently since it does not follow from the operative portion of the order and does not at all express the intention of the Court. Therefore this inadvertent error requires to be corrected and the order modified accordingly.;