JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.—The learned Single Judge has made the following observations in the judgment under appeals: — "The petitioner, though initially had challenged the vires of the Rules found at annexure-J concerning the recruitment to the post of Consolidation Officer, at the time of hearing of the petition, restricted his attack only to the order on promotion of respondents No. 4 to 6 made under such Rules. The only ground on which the order was attacked was that the promotion of respondents No. 4 to 6 had been made without considering the claim of the petitioner who admittedly fell in the filed of choice for promotion to such posts.” (Underlining supplied) 2. The learned Single Judge examined the validity of the ground with reference to the original official record and having found the same to be wholly without substance rejected the writ petition. The decision is unassailable on this point. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) seeks to raise before us a best of other grounds and, in fact, challenges the statement made in the judgment under appeal to the effect that initially a challenge to vires of the recruitment rules was levelled but the only ground which was urged at the hearing of the petition related to the non- consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion. 4. We are afraid it is not open to the learned Counsel to advance submissions of this nature before the court of appeal. In Madhu Sudan Chowdhri and others v. Mst Chandrabati Chowdhrain and others, AIR 1917 Privy Council 30, it was suggested that the proper procedure under such circumstances was to move the court in whose judgment the error is alleged to have crept in. In Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd Salem, AIR 1953 SC 98 at page 102, it is found observed that while it was not necessary or desirable to lay down any hard and fast rule, the course suggested by the Privy Council in Madhu Sudhans case, should ordinarily be taken in a case where a statement is alleged to have been wrongly recorded in a judgment. The same view was reiterated in Moran Mar Basselics Catholiocos and another v. Most Rev. The same view was reiterated in Moran Mar Basselics Catholiocos and another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, AIR 1954 SC 526, where it is held that when the error complained of is that the court assumed that a concession had been made when none had in fact been made or that the court misconceived the terms of the concession or the scope and extent of it, it will not generally appear on the record but will have to be brought before the court by way of an affidavit as suggested by the Privy Council as well as by the Supreme Court and this can only be done by way of review. And now there is a very clear pronouncement on the subject in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, AIR 1982 SC 1249. In that case the counsel who had appeared before the High Court was recorded to have made certain concession before the High Court and in the Supreme Court he sought to urge that he had never made any such concession and invited the court to peruse the written submission made by him in the High Court. The Supreme Court repelled the attempt in the following words: "We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry 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. (Per Lord Atkinson in somasurdaran v. Subramaniam, AIR 1926 PC 136. 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 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 the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of facts 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. The principle is well settled that statements of facts 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 {Per Lord Buck-master in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30. That is the only way to have the record corrected.” 5. In view of the declaration of law in the aforesaid terms, the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be allowed to urge before us that what has been recorded in the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not correctly reflect what transpired at the hearing before him and to attack the judgment on that ground or, on that basis, to advance any other grounds in support of the appeal. 6. At this stage, Mrs. Malhotra seeks leave to withdraw the letters patent Appeal with a view to moving a Review application before the learn ed Single Judge permission granted.Dismissed as withdrawn. Dismissed as withdrawn.