FAO (Ord.) 160 of 2002. 5.5.2008 Present: Mr. G.C.Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Benu Thakur, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Executing Court passed in Execution Petition No. 43 of 1999. The Decree Holders are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned appellate Court dismissing the execution petition preferred by them. The operative part of the order reads: “ 7. The copy of the order dated 14.7.1997 passed in the earlier execution petition referred to above is at Annexure –A as relied upon by the respondents. The order reads thus: “ 14.7.1997 Present: Shri B.R.Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the DH. Shri S.C.Sharma, DA for JD. Sh. Vidya Datt, Dealing hand of Sub Divisional Collector, Solan. In this execution petition as per award by this court, the decree holder is claiming recovery of balance amount of Rs.9,19,771.96 Ps. The respondents were supplied copy and also given opportunity to verify the calculation. They have also filed calculations regarding the amount payable to the claimant. Vide this report submitted by the respondents, a sum of Rs.2,24,887/- is payable being balance -2- amount of the award dated 7.3.1991 in case No. 109-S/4 of 1981 and confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 19.5.1994. ShriB.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the DH agrees with the calculation and statement filed by the respondent today in the court. Consequent upon the aforesaid position the balance amount of Rs.2,24,887/- be deposited in the Court within 30 days. Put up on 20.8.1997. Sd/- District Judge, Solan, Distt. Solan, (HP)”. 8. The final order dated 30.8.1997 in the said earlier execution petition may also be reproduced here in verbatim advantageously. It reads: “30.8.1997. Present: Sh. B.R.Sharma, Adv. Counsel for DH. Sh. S.C.Sharma, DA for JD. As per office report, a sum of Rs.2,24,887.00 has been deposited in the court. This amount be refunded to the applicants-DH and consequently the application dismissed as fully satisfied. Refund voucher of Shri Jai Parkash be made through Sh. Keshva Kant as per Special Power of Attorney Ex. PC. Be consigned to the Record Room. Sd/- (T.N.Vaidya), District Judge, Solan, Distt. Solan, H.P.” -3- It hardly needs to be stressed here that the entire payment of the award amount stood paid to the applicants as per the order above. The applicants had agreed to the correctness of the amount they had received. On the admission of the applicants, regarding the correctness of the award amount received by them, the execution petition was dismissed as fully satisfied by this court.” The learned Executing Court holds that by filing revised calculations, the matter is being reagitated and even on consideration of the revised calculations, the executing Court held that the decree/award stood satisfied. Learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holders has drawn my attention to ground (i) in the appeal stating that statement made by the counsel against the interest of the appellant is not binding upon them and could not be looked into by Court. In fact he urged that such statement was made under misapprehension of fact. If this is the situation, remedy available to the appellants was to have agitated this matter before the learned Executing Court itself and withdraw the statement and to satisfy the learned Court that the statement was not made as -4- recorded by the learned Executing Court. It is by now well settled that the Court record cannot be controverted. If the statement made by the learned counsel is not correct or has been made under a wrong impression, the appropriate remedy is to agitate the question on specific issues before the learned Executing Court bringing the mistakes so committed to its notice. If, as urged, the statement made by learned counsel is not correct or against the interests of his client and made without any factual foundations, it would be open to the Decree Holders to urge this point before the learned District Judge. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with a direction that ground (i) as raised in this appeal will be reconsidered by the learned District Judge, Solan in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the learned Executing Court on 6.6.2008. May 5, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.