1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.87 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2070 OF 2009. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5444 OF 2009. Jagdamba Magaswargiya Matsaya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. ... APPELLANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Suresh W. Munde, Advocate for appellant. Shri S.P. Daund, A.G.P. For R.Nos.1 to 5. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 08th JUNE, 2009. PER COURT: 1. We heard learned Counsel Mr. Munde for the appellant and learned A.G.P. For the respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Munde learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on May 7, 2009 (page 150 of the compilation). Grievance is raised that the present appellant was respondent no.6 in the Writ Pet8ition No.2070 of 2009. Advocate Mr. Suresh W. Munde, who is present before us, makes a statement that he 2 had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.6 namely, Jagdamba Magaswargiya Matsaya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Hiwarkheda (Gautala), Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad in Petition No.2070 of 2009. However, when the matter was taken up before the learned Single Bench on 7th May, 2009 for admission hearing, Advocate Mr. N.R. Solunke appeared in the Court and made a statement that he was appearing on behalf of Respondent no.6 in Writ Petition No.2070 of 2009. Mr. Munde further makes a statement that affidavit-in- reply was filed by Adv. Mr. N.R. Solunke on behalf of Respondent No.6 which was tendered in the Court itself. According to the Mr. Munde appearance of Advocate Mr. N.R. Solunke was shown as Advocate for respondent no.6 and Mr. Munde was not heard by the learned Single Bench. 2. Happening during the course of hearing of the matter in a Court is a matter, which can be raised before the same Court in accordance with the provisions of law. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhavnagar University v/s Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. And others [(2003)2 SCC 111]. In the matter of Bhavnagar University (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 61, has mentioned its earlier judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra v/s Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak wherein it has been observed, “When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney-General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay 3 before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. ..... We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. `Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation.’ (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty). We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence.” 3. We have neither entered into the merits of the case nor made any observation. We grant liberty to the appellant to move the learned Single Bench of this Court by filing appropriate application/proceeding. 4. Letters Patent Appeal with Civil Application stands disposed of with liberty in favour of the appellant – applicant to move the learned Single Bench of this Court whereat the Writ Petition is pending. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH,J ] ... PLK/* 4