R.R. Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned wherein it is clearly mentioned that the revision was filed against the dead person. It is also apparent on the face of record that instead of moving an application for substitution against the dead person, the petitioners have cut down the name of opposite party No. 8 without permission of the Court and wrote the name of his legal representatives in his place in the array of opposite parties.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners before the Board of Revenue has vehemently argued that the interim stay order may be extended but the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision. If any person is aggrieved with the happening of the Court recorded in the judgment, then instead of moving to higher Courts, ought to have moved before the concerned Court a review petition. As a matter of fact whatever is recorded in the judgment is gospel truth. The members of the Bar or litigant public are not entitled to question the statement of facts recorded in the judgment. (See AIR 1982 SC 1249). An aggrieved person can approach to the same Court by way of filing review petition.
(3.) In the instant case, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact, the petitioners have moved substitution application and review petition before the respondent No. 1, Board of Revenue which is pending consideration.;