Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010173172026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2872/2026 FAKAR UDDIN TALUKDAR S/O -LATE MAKADDAS ALI, R/O- SOUTH KANDIGRAM, P.O- MAIUA, P.S- BADARPUR, DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788806 VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTALNHOUSE A 25/27 ASAF ROAD, NEW DELHI 110002 ANP REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI- 7, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER. 2:KHAIRUL ISLAM S/O-ATAUR RAHMAN R/O-VILL P.O- KANISHAIL P.S DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, Advocate for the Respondent : , In Mac.App. Case No. 67/2018(D/O) In Mac.App. Case No. 67/2018 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Page No.# 2/3 09.09.2026 [1] Heard Ms. P. Ahkikary, the learned counsel for the applicant. [2] This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant in connection with MAC Appeal No. 67/2018, praying for rectification of inadvertent typographical mistake which has been crept in the judgement dated 27.07.2026, passed in MAC Appeal No. 67/2018 by this court. [3] It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the aforesaid judgment, the relevant MAC Case number has been wrongly mentioned as “MAC Case No. 93/2018,” in place of “MAC Case No. 93/2011.” [4] I have gone through the instant interlocutory application as well as considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. [5] On perusal of the judgment dated 27.07.2026, passed in MAC Appeal No. 67/2018, it appears that the relevant MAC Case number has been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the said judgement as MAC Case No. 93/2018. Page No.# 3/3 [6] Same appears to be inadvertent typographical mistake; hence, same is required to be rectified. [7] Accordingly, same is rectified and it is hereby directed that the said “MAC Case No. 93/2018,” in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the aforesaid judgment shall be read as “MAC Case No. 93/2011.” [8] With the above observations, this interlocutory application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant