Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Niklank Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondnet no. 1.
The revisionist has come up challenging the interlocutory order dated 16.12.2015 passed by S.C.C. Court / District Judge in S.C.C. No. 07 of 2010 whereby opportunity of cross examination was denied.
In the impugned order itself it has been clearly mentioned that the revisionist has given her consent that she does not want to cross examine. This observation was made by the court below in its judicial order. The said observation is being disputed by saying that the revisionist has not given any consent.
It is a settled law that the observations made in the judicial decision or order are taken to be true.
A reference may be made to a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another AIR 1982 SC 1249, paragraph 4 whereof is quoted as under:-
"4. 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 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 Somasundaran Vs. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136). 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. 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 attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chanderwati, A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 30). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment."
Even otherwise, the order dated 16.12.2015 is interlocutory in nature. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned herein in my revisional powers under Section 25 of the U.P. Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887.
With the aforesaid observations the present revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2016 Lalit Shukla