1 2026:CGHC:15727-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 325 of 2026 1 - Ravindra Kumar Nanda S/o Late Nemnath Nanda Aged About 75 Years R/o Dak Bangla Ward, Behind Bombay Garage, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Firoj Shah S/o Late Harun Shah R/o Beside Naiyyar Engineer, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Caust-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order On Board 07.04.2026 Per ; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 1. The present Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) has been filed by the applicant/petitioner seeking modification/clarification of the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No. 4483 of 2023, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that “the petition stands dismissed as not pressed.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the writ petition was finally heard and disposed of on 13.03.2026. However, prior to its disposal, the parties had amicably resolved their dispute and entered into a compromise dated 29.10.2025. In furtherance of the said settlement, I.A. No. 04 of 2026 was filed seeking permission to bring the compromise deed on record. It is submitted that this Court, upon due consideration, allowed the said interlocutory application and the compromise deed was duly taken on record as Annexure P/15. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement before this Court that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner does not wish to press the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that while disposing of the writ petition, the operative portion records that the petition stands “dismissed as not pressed,” which, though technically correct, does not fully and accurately reflect the true basis for such disposal, namely, the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is further contended that the petition was not withdrawn simpliciter or abandoned, but was not pressed solely on account of the amicable settlement between the parties, which had already been taken on record by this Court. Therefore, the recording of the phrase “dismissed as not pressed” may 3 create an erroneous impression that the petitioner had abandoned the claim without any resolution of the dispute. Learned counsel submits that such recording may cause prejudice to the applicant in future proceedings, as it may be construed by subordinate courts or authorities that the claim of the petitioner stood rejected or given up on merits, which is not the factual position. It is thus prayed that, in the interest of justice and to avoid any ambiguity, the operative portion of the order dated 13.03.2026 be suitably modified to reflect that the writ petition was disposed of in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the application and submits that the order dated 13.03.2026 was passed on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition is not pressed. It is contended that the order correctly records the statement and, therefore, does not call for any modification. However, it is fairly submitted that if this Court is of the view that the order requires clarification to reflect the factual position regarding compromise, the respondents have no serious objection to such clarification, provided that no findings on merits are recorded. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the order dated 13.03.2026, it is evident that the writ petition was disposed of on the statement made by learned 4 counsel for the petitioner that the petition is not pressed. It is also not in dispute that prior to such statement, the parties had entered into a compromise dated 29.10.2025 and the same was brought on record by way of I.A. No. 04 of 2026, which was allowed by this Court. Thus, the factual position that emerges is that the writ petition was not withdrawn simpliciter, but was not pressed specifically in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which compromise had already been taken on record by this Court. In such circumstances, though the expression “dismissed as not pressed” may not be legally incorrect, it does not fully capture the underlying basis of disposal of the writ petition. The omission to reflect that the petition was disposed of in view of the compromise may give rise to ambiguity and may lead to unintended consequences in future proceedings. 6. It is well settled that courts possess the inherent power to correct or clarify their orders so as to reflect the true intent and factual basis of the decision, particularly when such correction does not involve re-appreciation of merits or review of the substantive findings. In the present case, the modification sought by the applicant is limited in nature and is only intended to clarify that the disposal of the writ petition was on account of the compromise between the parties. Such clarification neither alters the substance of the order nor affects the rights of the parties on merits. 5 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the present application would serve the ends of justice by ensuring clarity and preventing any possible misinterpretation before subordinate courts or authorities. 8. Accordingly, the present MCC is allowed. The operative portion of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed in WPC No. 4483 of 2023 is modified to the limited extent that the expression: “the petition stands dismissed as not pressed” shall be read as: “the petition stands disposed of in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.” 9. It is made clear that this modification is purely clarificatory in nature and does not amount to review of the order on merits. 10. The MCC stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna