DALJIT SINGH GUJRAL & ORS. versus JAGJIT SINGH ARORA & ORS.

DALJIT SINGH GUJRAL & ORS. versus JAGJIT SINGH ARORA & ORS.

The High Court single judge erred in correcting the judgment so as to alter the fundamental issue already framed and answered, without notice to the appellants, thus vitiating both the main judgment and the order in the review petition. The subsequent correction was not merely accidental or typographical, but went to the root of the matter and affected the sanctity of the issue, warranting setting aside both orders and directing rehearing.

Parties
Appellant: Daljit Singh Gujral & Ors.; Respondent: Jagjit Singh Arora & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Judgment and subsequent order set aside; High Court directed to rehear afresh.
Legal Topics
Application for Correction of Judgment, Scope of Section 482 Cr PC, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings, Medical Negligence, Typographical Correction in Judgment
Criminal Law Medical Negligence Application for Correction of Judgment Scope of Section 482 Cr PC Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Typographical Correction in Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daljit Singh Gujral & Ors.

Appellant

Jagjit Singh Arora & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court single judge could correct an issue already framed and answered in the judgment as accidental omission or typographical error
  2. 2 Whether the correction altered the foundation and sanctity of the issue framed
  3. 3 Whether application for review and correction was maintainable without notice to appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court single judge erred in correcting the judgment so as to alter the fundamental issue already framed and answered, without notice to the appellants, thus vitiating both the main judgment and the order in the review petition. The subsequent correction was not merely accidental or typographical, but went to the root of the matter and affected the sanctity of the issue, warranting setting aside both orders and directing rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Judgment and subsequent order set aside; High Court directed to rehear afresh.

Orders

  • Judgment dated 16.11.2012 and subsequent order dated 11.2.2013 set aside
  • High Court directed to rehear Crl. Misc. No. M-25733 of 2011 afresh