Amit Rawal, J.:— Prayer in the application is for clarification of the order dated 29.01.2016 passed in FAO No. 10525 of 2014, Ms. Nivedita Sharma, learned counsel submits that as the arguments on behalf of applicant were addressed in the application and not in the main appeal.
2. However, the order was passed and dictated in the presence of the counsel for the parties in the Court and FAOs were disposed of. It is only after expiry of 1 ½ months, the application for clarification has been filed. It is totally unfair on the part of counsel making such statement as the order was passed in their presence. It is settled law that where a situation has arisen doubting observation of Court, regarding particular issue observation of Judges cannot be contradicted by statements at bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. It is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of 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 as reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463 : 1982 AIR (SC) 1249 State of Maharastra v. Ramdas Shri Niwas Nayak, reiterated in (2003) 6 SCC 573 : 2003 AIR (SC) 3028 Central Bank of India v. Vraj Lal Kapoor Chand Gandhi.
3. No ground is made out for interference in the aforementioned order. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 75,000/-, which shall be paid to the opposite party, failing which, the opposite party shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this regard.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of the Court for withdrawal of the application, same is declined.