MC 1715/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is pointed out by this application that the name of the district in t he order dated 23.5.2011 passed in MC 892/2011 has been wrongly recorded as ’Dib rugarh’ in place of ’Golaghat’. The above typographical error is borne out by th e records. In the above view of the matter, the word ’Dibrugarh’ appearing in the a forementioned order would stand substituted by the word ’Golaghat’. This order shall form an integral part of the order dated 23.5.2011. As the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 complains about delay in the deposit, it is provided, in view of the above intervening development, t hat the applicant insurer would release the amount as directed earlier within a period of four weeks herefrom without fail. The other directions contained in th e order dated 23.5.2011 are retained. Misc. case is allowed in the above terms.