1 / 3 2025:CGHC:56036 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1168 of 2025 1 - Mohan Kumar Rao S/o Shri T. Shankar Rao Aged About 50 Years R/o 30, Block Balaji Nagar, Near Ganesh Temple, Sector 111, Khamtrai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Sarita Rao W/o Shri Mohan Kumar Rao Aged About 42 Years R/o 30, Block Balaji Nagar, Near Ganesh Temple, Sector 111, Khamtrai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1 - ICICI Bank Limited Through Authorized Officer Satpal Chamber, Telibandha Road, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Judicial Raipur District And Session Court Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Magistrate Cum Collector Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Registrar Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh … Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Raman Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1. : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18/11/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.28 11:04:33 +0530 2 / 3 1. The applicants have filed this MCC seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 4721/2025 on the ground that during the hearing, an oral observation was made that the petitioners may avail an alternate remedy by approaching the competent civil court; however, such liberty was not specifically incorporated in the operative portion of the final order, thereby creating alleged ambiguity. 2. I have perused the order dated 04.09.2025 in its entirety. This Court in WPC No.4721 of 2025 has passed the following order:- 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the application made by the petitioner on 02.01.2025 (Annexure A/2), in accordance with law, rules and regulations, expeditiously as soon as possible. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. 3. Perusal of the order dated 04.09.2025 would show that WPC No.4721 of 2025 was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the application dated 02.01.2025 in accordance with law, rules and regulations, expeditiously. The order consciously records that the Court has expressed no opinion on merits, as stated in paragraph 7. No liberty of the nature sought in this MCC was ever part of the operative directions. Any oral exchange or incidental observation during the course of hearing is not a pronouncement of the Court and does not create an enforceable right requiring inclusion in the formal judgment. 3 / 3 The operative portion is clear, complete, and reflects the precise adjudication intended by the Court. 4. It is well settled that modification cannot be sought to introduce new liberties, directions, or findings, nor can the judgment be re-written under the guise of clarification. An MCC lies only to correct clerical or accidental errors, none of which are shown in the present case. The grievance that the absence of a recorded liberty creates confusion is wholly misconceived. The petitioners remain free to avail any remedy available to them in law, without requiring an express mention. 5. Accordingly, the MCC seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 04.09.2025 stands dismissed as being devoid of substance. No order as to costs. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu