- (1.)THIS intra-court appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyanpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises from the order dated 21-09-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4268/2003.
(2.)WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the petitioners-appellants preferred the writ petition only in respect of payment of salary and for modification of the order dated 8-4-2003, contained in Annexure-P/14, whereby they have been asked to continue as contract teachers; but the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the appellants' very appointment is de hors the rules and hence, regularisation is impermissible, though the same was not in issue. Learned counsel further submitted that neither any relief regarding regularisation was sought nor the same was urged before the learned Single Judge, yet the learned Single Judge observed that the services of the appellant cannot be regularised as his very appointment was de hors the rules.

It is a settled proposition of law that the statements of fact recorded in the judgment, are conclusive of the facts so stated, however if any party thinks that the said fact has wrongly been recorded in the judgment, the appropriate remedy, at the first instance, is to apply for review before the same court. The apex court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shriniwas Naik, AIR 1982 SC 1249, in para 4 of the judgment, has observed that 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 recorded the statement of fact. Following the aforesaid judgment the apex court again in Bhavnagar Univesity Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited, (2003)2 SCC 111, wherein it was contended that other points have also been raised before the High Court, refused to go into the said contentions by observing that even assuming the same is to be correct, the remedy would lie in filing appropriate application for review before the High Court.

(3.)THEREFORE, in the case in hand, if the appellant did not claim regularisation in the writ petition nor the same was argued on the issue which was not addressed, it would be open to the appellants to apply for review before the same court at the first instance for the reason that we do not know as to what transpired before the learned Single Judge.
At this stage learned counsel for the appellants seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant writ appeal with the liberty to move a review petition in the writ petition itself. Prayer is allowed.