Whether the appellate dispositif of 27 September 2013 had to be rectified under Art. 334 CPC
Yes. The dispositive part was inconsistent with the record and had to be corrected ex officio.
The court had mistakenly assumed the witness-fee advance was paid by the appellant, although it was paid by the respondent. The earlier deletion of chiffre III of the first-instance judgment was therefore an error of drafting/interpretation.