Judgment M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 1/12/1993 by which he has granted leave to defend to the defendant-petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 55,000. 00. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 54,208. 00 under Order 37, Rule 2, C. P. C. The defendant put his appearance and filed an application for leave to defend under Order 37, Rule 3 (5), C. P. C. At the time of its hearing, the learned council for the plaintiff stated that if the defendant was ready to furnish bank guarantee leave to defend may be granted, thereon the defendant agreed and accordingly the impugned order was passed. ( 3 ) TENDED by the learned counsel for defendant-petitioner that the, impugned order is against the spirit of the provisions of Order 37, C. P. C. , the trial Court did not pass detailed order, neither the plaintiffs counsel stated that leave to defend may be granted if the defendant furnishes a bank guarantee nor the defendants counsel agreed to it and under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to contest the suit otherwise the defendant would suffer an irreparable injury as admittedly loan was not taken by him from the plaintiff Bank. ( 4 ) THERE is no substance in the revision petition. There is nothing on the record, to indicate that any application was moved by the defendant or his counsel challenging the said recital contained in the impugned order. 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. No enquiry as to what transpired is permissible: Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Reference of , AIR 1982 SC 1249 : (1982 Cri LJ 1581) paras 4 and 7, may be made here. Iii view of the said offer of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and its acceptance by the learned counsel for the defendants, nothing left for decision for the court regarding the term and condition on which the leave to defend was to be granted. Iii view of the said offer of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and its acceptance by the learned counsel for the defendants, nothing left for decision for the court regarding the term and condition on which the leave to defend was to be granted. In such circumstances, trial court was simply required to record the statements of the parties or their counsel and to pass order accordingly. ( 5 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. By furnishing bank guarantee, the defendant-petitioner is not going to suffer an, irreparable injury and it would also not occasion failure of justice to him within the meaning of Section 115 (1), C. P. C. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is summarily dismissed. Revision dismissed. .