S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Writ Petitions are filed against a common order dated 4/01/2000 passed by the Special Court constituted under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, in I. A. Nos. 752 and 857 of 1999 in LGC Nos. 2 and 34 of 1997by the impugned orders, the Special Court rejected the applications filed by the appellants herein under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC seeking to implead themselves as party respondents to the above L. G. C. Nos. 2 and 34 of 1997. The Special Court in its order at Para 16 observed:"though the person who filed the affidavit in support of these petitions referred to various documents like, GPA executed by the legal heirs of late Hasmath Ali Khan to Khadeerunnisa Begum, unregistered sale deed dt. 17. 5. 59 allegedly executed by the GPA Khadeerunnisa Begum to Abdul Gafoor, the alleged sale deed dated 30. 1. 1978 executed by all co-sharers in favour of Abdul Gafoor and the declaration dated 11. 7. 1988 by all co-sharers affirming the alleged un-registered sale deed by the GPA in favour of Abdul Gafoor, not even a single scrap of paper has been filed before this court along with these petitions to show that the petitioners have in fact any interest much less substantial interest in the subject matter of dispute concerned in these cases. Mere filing of an affidavit itself is not sufficient to decide whether the presence of the petitioners herein in the present proceedings is necessary or not for the complete and effective adjudication of the entire dispute between the parties. Added to it, in case the petitioners are mechanically added as parties to the L. G. Cs in question, it would certainly hold up the adjudication of these matters by this court indefinitely. If the petitioners are so advised, they may institute a separate legal proceeding to establish their rights, but they cannot be allowed to stall the present proceedings. Added to it, in case the petitioners are mechanically added as parties to the L. G. Cs in question, it would certainly hold up the adjudication of these matters by this court indefinitely. If the petitioners are so advised, they may institute a separate legal proceeding to establish their rights, but they cannot be allowed to stall the present proceedings. " ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in fact the relevant supporting documents were produced before the Special Court but the Registry of the Special Court did not accept the same and when the Registry of the Special Court refused to receive the documents, the petitioners brought the said fact to the notice of the learned judges of the Special Court and the learned judges orally told the petitioners that the documents could be produced only after the implead petitions were heard and decided. The learned counsel drew our attention to Para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petitions, which reads as follows:"it is further submitted that the petitioners have filed all the documents along with the implead petition. But the Registry was not accepted and however, Xerox copies were served on the other side. When we want to file the original documents in support of our case, the learned Judge orally said that the documents will be permitted after the implead petition was ordered. Thus the petitioners were not allowed to file the documents. Now it is not open to the 1st respondent to say that no documents were produced in support of the cases of the implead petitioners. We are very much having documentary proof and intended to file the same along with the implead petition but we were not permitted to do so. With regards to the gazette notification, there is no time limit for a person who intends to become a party to the proceedings. As per the gazette notification, persons who are having objections can file objections within the prescribed (time) but not the persons interested. " ( 3 ) WHAT is stated in Para 7 of the Writ Affidavit has the effect of contesting the correctness of the statements made by the learned judges of the Special Court in Para 16 of the impugned order. " ( 3 ) WHAT is stated in Para 7 of the Writ Affidavit has the effect of contesting the correctness of the statements made by the learned judges of the Special Court in Para 16 of the impugned order. It is well settled that the judges record as to what transpired in the Court cannot be permitted to be contested either by the litigant or his counsel. The only course open to the litigant and/or his counsel if a wrong statement is attributed by them by an adjudicatory authority or the Court is to bring such mistake to the notice of the same authority or the judge and get it rectified or deleted. This position is well-settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak1 wherein the Supreme Court held 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. " (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, 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 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. 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 (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30 ). 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 appreciation 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. " ( 4 ) IN Apar (P) Ltd. v. Union of India at para 7, the Supreme Court held:". . . . . . . THE concessions made by counsel on behalf of the petitioners in the High Court as recorded in the impugned judgment indicate that the transactions by the petitioners were of land in excess of purchased area 39,200 square yards. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the concessions attributed to the petitioners counsel in the High Court are wrongly recorded in the High Court s judgment. An Affidavit of counsel filed in this Court disputing the making of such concessions which have been recorded in the High Court s judgment was relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners. In reply to our query, the learned counsel, however, clearly conceded that no such affidavit was filed in the High Court saying that the concessions recorded in the judgment had not been made by the petitioners counsel. The permissible manner in which such challenge to the concession of counsel recorded in the High Court s judgment can be made is well settled. The permissible manner in which such challenge to the concession of counsel recorded in the High Court s judgment can be made is well settled. This being the settled practice to assail a concession of counsel recorded in the High Court s judgment and the same not having been adopted by the petitioners in spite of the fact that the petitioners were represented by several senior counsel before us, this contention cannot be accepted and the petitioners must be held bound by the concessions made on their behalf by their counsel in the High Court as recorded in the High Court s judgment to which the learned Chief Justice was a party. ( 5 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Admane Anita Moti, the Supreme Court held at Para 3 thus:". . . . . . . . . IT is well established that the factual recitals or observations made in a judgment or order are taken to be correct unless rebutted. The burden to rebut it is on the person who challenges it. One of the methods to rebut such observation is to file the affidavit of the person who was present in the Court and to produce such material which may satisfy the Court that the recital in the judgment crept in inadvertently or it was erroneous. But the averment extracted above would indicate that it is a statement more of law than rebuttal of fact of what happened in the Court. The Deputy Education Officer has not taken upon himself the responsibility of denying the observation in the affidavit categorically. The counsel who appeared before the Court and was required to file affidavit did not do so. A skilful drafting by vaguely asserting without even stating and explaining why consent could not have been given cannot be held to be sufficient rebuttal of statement of fact in the order passed by the High Court. " ( 6 ) IN the result, we do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the order of the Special Court. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to seek review of the impugned order before the Special Court if wrong statement is attributed to the petitioner by the Special Court in the Order. There shall be no order as to costs.