the Judges recorded in their judgment as to what transpired in court. But the statement of the Judges recorded in judgments cannot be permitted 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. Such statements are conclusive of the facts so stated. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in the 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 necessarily rest there. This is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in a catena of rulings including in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another , AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1249; Central Bank of India vs. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi and another , 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 186 and two Single Judge decisions of this court applying the law in the aforesaid two cases in Milkha Singh and others vs. Nirmal Singh and others , 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 842 & Hardevinder Singh and another vs. Smt. Nirmal Kaur and another , VOL.CLIV-(2009-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 537.
