Judgment 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 3.4.02 passed by the District Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Misc. Appeal no. 77/01 by which the court below, in view of the agreement between the parties, allowed the said Misc. appeal setting aside the impugned order directed the petitioners to supply coal on payment of price until status report showing the unit as working is received. 2. The plaintiffs filed Title suit no. 137/2000 praying therein to declare letter no. 2005 dated 9.6.2000 issued by the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Bhojpur not to supply coal to the plaintiffs as illegal. The suit was dismissed against which Misc. Appeal no. 77/01 was filed by the plaintiff in which stand was taken by the parties that the supply of coal to the plaintiffs can be allowed provided following conditions are fulfilled. (a) The status reports as working is to be received from G.M. DIC/State Industries Department. (b) The unit should have the sales tax registration with the Commercial Taxes Department of the State. (c) The units linkage should be valid. 3. During hearing of the case counsel for the Central Coalfield Limited appeared in the Appeal and made certain concessions. The court, recording those concessions, passed the impugned order dated 3.4.02. 4. Perusal of the aforesaid impugned order indicates that the same has been , passed on the basis of the concession offered by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the court below. When the aspect, that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the concessions recorded at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the court below, was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners in High Court he made categorical statement at the bar that the learned counsel appearing in the court below on behalf of the petitioner was not authorised to make any concession in the court below on behalf of the petitioners as such the impugned order should be set aside on the ground that the counsel for the petitioners appearing in the court below exceeded his brief, as no instruction to offer concession was ever given to him. 5. 5. While the aspect of concession was being debated, counsel for the opposite party submitted that the statement of facts recorded by the Judge in the judgment should be taken as sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be contradicted by the statement at the bar or by affidavit and other evidence. He further submitted that statement of facts as to what transpired at the hearing recorded in the judgmerit of the case is conclusive of the fact so stated and no one can contradict such statement of fact recorded therein. He also submitted in this connection that if a party thinks that happenings of the court has wrongly been recorded in the judgment then it is incumbent upon the party to call the attention of the very Judge who has recorded the fact and not by taking the matter in realm of the higher court. In this connection, learned counsel has invited my attention to the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249 . Having considered the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order on the basis of the concession offered by the learned counsel I am of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the" Apex Court if the Civil Revision Petitioners wish to assail the concession offered by the counsel in the court below on the ground that the counsel was not authorized to make any such concession as is found recorded in the impugned order then the remedy is to avail review before the court below. So far this court is concerned, it has to accept the state of affairs recorded in the impugned order and in that view of the matter there does not appear to be any merit in this Civil Revision Application which is accordingly dismissed.