1 2025:CGHC:41887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 841 of 2025 1 - Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Operation Centre Second Floor, 90 A, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, 122015, Haryana (Respondent No. 2). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Nasibun Nisha W/o Late Mohd. Farukh Ansari Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Joor (Banja), Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Petitioner). 2 - Axis Bank Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Provision Of Companies Act 1956, Through Its Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd. Address Sidara Complex, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. 495001 (Respondent No. 1). 3 - Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority Of India Through Its, The Chairman, Address Sy No. 115/1, Financial District Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, 500032 (Respondent No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya Chopra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Prashant Gupta, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. By way of this MCC, the applicant has prayed for following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that, the instant petition may kindly be allowed and the detail of the Counsel of applicant (respondent No. 2) may kindly be mentioned and modified (as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of present application) on order dated 23.07.2025 and 07.05.2025 of WPC No. 4499 of 2022, in the interest of justice. ” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the present application arises on account of an inadvertent typographical error in the orders passed by this Court. He further submits that on 07.05.2025, the aforesaid writ petition, being WPC No. 4499 of 2022, was listed before this Hon’ble Court, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter was reserved for orders. Thereafter, the final order in the said writ petition came to be delivered on 23.07.2025. However, due to an inadvertent mistake, the name of the arguing counsel for Respondent No. 2, namely Mr. Aditya Chopra, who had consistently appeared and argued the matter before this Hon’ble Court, was inadvertently 3 omitted in the said order. 3. No objection has been raised from other side to the modification sought for. 4. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. The orders dated 07.05.2025 and 23.07.2025 passed in WPC No. 4499 of 2022 are directed to be modified to the extent that the name of the arguing counsel for Respondent No. 2 shall be read and reflected as Mr. Aditya Chopra, Advocate and Respondent No. 1 shall be read and reflected as Mr. Prashant Gupta, Advocate. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat