IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1078 of 2007 With C.R.No.841 of 2007 YOGENDRA PRASAD @ YOGENDRA MAN Versus ABHIJEET ANAND ----------- 2 17.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner in both the cases. In view of the fact that the order dated 20.2.2007 in Eviction Suit no. 11 of 2005 impugned in Civil Revision No. 841 of 2007 had been under Section 15 of the BBC Act has been passed on the basis of consent of the counsel for the petitioner appearing in the Court below, this Court would find no reason to interfere with the same. Counsel for the petitioner, however has very vehemently made a submission that actually the oral consent recorded by the Court below is not correct because no such written consent was given by the petitioner to his counsel. This court would however find no merit in such submission. A statement recording concession of a counsel in an order of the cannot be so lightly interfered by the Supreme Court. Such a plea in fact cannot be taken by the petitioner - 2 - before this court. If there was misconception or mistake in the order of the Court recording a statement of fact that should have been got corrected by filing a review before the Court below passing the impugned order. In this opinion of this Court as to what happened in Court or what were the pleas urged before the Court below has to be decided with reference to recitals contained in the order. Reference in this connection may be made to the following passage in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs. Ramdas Shriniwas Nayak reported in AIR (982 SC 1249). “…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 arena. “Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation”. (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136). We - 3 - 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. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing , recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the - 4 - attention of the every Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was statement that has been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there…” Consequently there is no jurisdictional error and/or material irregularity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the impugned order dated 10.4.2007 in Civil Revision No. 1078 of 2007 is unsustainable on the ground that the Court below while striking of the defence on account of non-compliance of the order directing to deposit the payment of rent under Section 15 of the Act did not take into consideration that a - 5 - sum of Rs. 10,000/- was already given by way of advance which was to be adjusted in the payment of rent. She also refers to some affidavit shown by the alleged landlady who had received their advance by way of rent. The Court below has considered this aspect and has rightly come to the conclusion that the landlord in whose favour the order for payment of rent was passed under Section 15 of the Act was the only person who could have received the rent and, therefore, the so called pleas of advance given to some other landlady could not have been accepted at least for the purposes of compliance of the order under Section 15 of the BBC Act. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit also in the second Civil Revision application. Considering, however, that the petitioner’s defence against ejectment will stand struck off on account of some confusion in complying the order of the Court below, this court would give liberty to the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of land to deposit the landlord within a period of one month from - 6 - the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and in case the petitioner deposits entire arrears of rent to the satisfaction of the Court below in the aforesaid period the Court below will allow the petitioner to lead her evidence without insisting on its order dated 10.4.2007 striking of the advance of the petitioner which in fact would only remain suspended till the period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However in the event, the petitioner does not deposit the entire arrears of rent within the aforesaid period of one month, the order dated 10.4.2007 would revive and thereafter the suit will be decided on its on merit without taking the defence of ejectment of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions both the applications are dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)