D.N. Baruah, J. — This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.3.95 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.27(SH) of 1994 directing the respondents in the writ petition to give allotment of quarter within a period of three weeks from the date of the said order. 2. The case of the writ petitioner was that he ought to have been given allotment of Quarter No. 109/3 at Pine Walk Area, Shillong, but he was denied the same. According to the respondent - writ petitioner, the action of the appellant was illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he approached this Court by filing the writ application. At the time of hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in the writ application gave assurance that they were willing to give the writ petitioner Quarter No. 109/3 at Pine Walk Area and, accordingly, the said order was passed. After more than a month i.e. on 2nd of May, 1995 the appeal was filed challenging the said order. 3. We have heard Mr. SC Chakravarty, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. VK Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in this appeal. 4. According to Mr. Chakravarty, respondents (in the writ petition) never gave such assurance or concession. From the impugned order it is abundantly clear mat the counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondents gave such assurance. It is a well settled law that Court's order should not be interfered in a light manner. In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayal & another, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249 . In the said case the Apex Court had the occasion to deal with a similar matter. The Apex Court in the said case observed thus - "... 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." 5. 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." 5. Relying on the above decision in the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.300/-.