JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Kanwar Singh (now deceased through his legal representatives) has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal against the order dated 12.12.1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide which the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1980 passed by the learned trial Court, was dismissed on the basis of his statement that he did not want to pursue his appeal.
2. The appellant filed a suit for declaration against the respondent challenging the validity of the registered sale deed dated 2.7.1973 executed by him in favour of the respondents for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/- on the ground that the same was got executed by the respondents by playing fraud and mis-representation upon him and to declare him as owner of the land in question. The respondents contested the aforesaid suit. It was pleaded by them that the appellant executed the aforesaid sale deed with his own free will and consent after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 17,200/- before the Sub Registrar. The registered sale deed was signed by the Sub Registrar after the appellant was made to understand its contents. Thereafter, the appellant appended his signatures in Gurmukhi script after admitting correctness of the sale deed. Since the land was under mortgage, the mortgagee Joginder Singh filed a suit against the appellant. In that suit, the appellant made a statement that the registered sale deed was executed by him with his own free will while he was in sound mind. The appellant has also acknowledged the sanctioning of mutation in favour of the respondents.
3. The learned trial court after considering evidence led by both the parties, dismissed the suit of the appellant while holding that the appellant could not prove any fraud, which was alleged to have been played upon him by the respondents at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was held that the registered sale deed in question was validity executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents after receiving the sale consideration before the Sub Registrar.
4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 1.9.1980. During the pendency of the said appeal, on 12.12.1981, the appellant made a statement before the Additional District Judge, Sangrur that he did not want to pursue his appeal and the same be dismissed. The said statement was recorded by the Court. It was duly read over to the appellant and he thumb marked the same after accepting it to be correct. On the basis of the said statement, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. Against that order, passed by the learned first appellate court, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant did not make any statement regarding dismissal of his appeal before the learned first appellate court. There was no reason for him to make such a statement when he was vigorously contesting the suit throughout before the trial court as well as before the first appellate court, but somehow the first appellate court has wrongly dismissed his appeal on the basis of the statement. Learned counsel for the appellant has also assailed the judgment and decree of the trial court vide which his suit was dismissed without properly appreciating the evidence available on the record.
7. After going through the impugned order as well as record of the case and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. The statement made by the appellant himself on 12.12.1981 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, was recorded during the court proceedings. The said statement was duly read over to the appellant and the same was, accepted to be correct. Thereafter, the appellant put his thumb impression on the said statement before the learned Presiding Officer. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not make the aforesaid statement on 12.12.1981 cannot be accepted. It is not open for the appellant to challenge the order passed by the learned first appellate court in appeal on the contention that he did not make any such statement before the learned first appellate court. The Appellate Court cannot go into this question whether the appellant did make such statement or not. If the appellant was having any grouse to the effect that his statement was not correctly recorded, he should have filed a miscellaneous application in the court before whom he made the statement for getting the correction in his earlier recorded statement. The appellant did not avail such remedy but has preferred the instant Regulars Second Appeal against the order passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur. The position of law in this regard is well settled. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1249, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-
“The Court is bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. It cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be that 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 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. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong application of the law and had led to gross injustice; but he may not call in question the very fact, of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.”
8. With this view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.