Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) ASSAILING the order dated 29th March, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, 4th Bench in O.A. No.3201 of 2010 (LRTT), this writ application has been filed. The impugned order reads such. "Case No. O.A. 3201 of 2010 (LRTT) 29.03.11 Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is present. Learned Govt. Representative is also present. On the submission of the Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, the application dt. 24.12.2010 under section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 filed by the petitioner is deemed to be treated as withdrawn a liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal against the impugned order dt. 21.02.03 passed in Mutation Case no. 59 of 2003 before the Appellate Authority within a period of sixty days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal condoning delay on the basis of an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, if the same is filed within the aforesaid period, and hear out the appeal on merit. The instant O.A. being No. 3201 of 2010 (LRTT) is thus disposed of. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Principal Officer of the Tribunal be made over to the learned Govt. Representative for communication to the concerned Authority for information and xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for by the petitioner, be delivered subject to payment of requisite Court fees. Sd/- P. K. Chakraborty Md. Ali Mondal" On a bare reading of the impugned order it appears that learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner before learned Tribunal below and submitted that Original Application should be treated as withdrawn with liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority assailing the order passed in Mutation Case. As the order was passed on the submission of learned Advocate appeared for the writ petitioner, the writ application is not maintainable assailing the same.
(3.) HOWEVER, Mrs. Maiti, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner before us, submits that no such submission was made by learned Advocate appeared before learned Tribunal and it was a wrong recording and she prayed for filing a Supplementary Affidavit to that extent. Accepting her oral submission, we can dispose of this writ application applying the settled legal position of law. Even if it is assumed for argumendo that learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner before learned Tribunal below did not submit to withdraw Original Application, still then this Court cannot interfere with the said order. It is settled law now, having long back of its origin, by the judgement of the Privy Council that wrong submission recorded as alleged by the party, cannot be a ground of attack controverting the order and proper course is to approach the concerned Court or Tribunal with an application seeking review. In the case Shyam Sunderam v. Subramonium reported in AIR 1926 Privy Counsel 136, Lord Atkinson expressed the view in the following language "we are bound to accept the statements of the judges recorded in their judgements, as to what transpired in Court. We cannot allow the statements of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges' say in the judgements that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject and remedy to call attention of the Court on such issue". Same view earlier expressed by Lord Buckmaster, in the case Madhusudan v. Chandrabatireported in 21 CWN 897. Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee also opined same view in the case Sarat Chandrav. Bivabati Debi reported in AIR 1922 (Cal) 584 in the following term "in such case litigant to apply the judge without delay raying rectification or review of judgement." Same view re-echoed in the case King Emperor v. Barendra Kumar reported in AIR 1924(Cal) 257 (Full Bench). The Apex Court also considered this point in the case State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249 wherein the Court held "judge's record is conclusive, neither Lawyer nor the litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the judge's himself but no where else." The same view reiterated by the Apex Court in the case Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2003 SC 511, Sankar Kumar Mondial v. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519, Central Bank of India v. Vrqjlal Kapurchand Gandhi reported in (2003) 6 SCC 573, Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546, a judgement of 3-Judges Bench. Earlier 3- Judges Bench in another case D.P. Chadhav. Triyugi Narain Mishra reported in (2001) 2 SCC 221 re-echoed the same view. Same view was taken in the case Mount Carmel School Society v. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2008) 2 SCC 141. Hence said principle in the judicial field starting from the year 1926, now got a deep root.;