when the matter came up before the Lok Adalat, it was recorded in the order in the presence of the parties who appeared in person that “ despite efforts, no compromise could be arrived between the parties”. Had there been a compromise between the parties, it would have definitely been brought to the notice of the Lok Adalat by the defendant and the Lok Adalat would not have sent this case back to the trial Court for the purpose of regular hearing. In this regard, in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another (Supra), it is held by the Apex Court that “the Court is bound to accept the statement of Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. It cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statement 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 a statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have wrongly been 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. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessary end there”.
