2. Though, vide orders dated 27.03.2024, 02.04.2024 and 03.04.2024 sufficient time was granted to respondents to file reply/instructions, but fact remains that till date neither instructions nor reply has Hbeen filed. Learned Senior counsel arguing on behalf of the respondents fairly stated during proceedings of the case that controversy can be decided on the basis of material already available on record.”

4. In such circumstances, we do not propose now to hear the counsel on merrits, since apparently, it was wrongly projected before us at that point of time that opportunity to file reply had not been given. Even if that was the case, then, an appropriaCte application should have been filed before the learned Single Judge immediately on the decision of the case as the order was passed in the open Court, which would be clear gthat the order is oral in nature on 04.04.2024.

5. Having not filed the appropriate application, the present appeal was filed and 339 days’ delay in re-filing the appeal also occurred and we condoned the delay on 20.08.2025. If there was any such requirement of filing reply or objection, the matter should have been placed before the learned Single Judge at the earliest

6. We are of the considered opinion that after a period of almost one and half years, now the said exercise cannot be allowed to be completed. It is not possible for the learned Single Judge as such to remember as to what happened a year and half earlier. It is settled principle that what happened in the Court is to be left in the Court.

7. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another (1982) 2 SCC 463, it was held that the Judges cannot be dragged into the arena of the dispute inter se litigation and 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 relevant para of the said judgment read 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 enquiry 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.” 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 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 affidavHit 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. rThat is the only way to have the record corrected.u If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily and there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit 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 mak