JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This appeal has been filed by the insurance company against the judgment arid order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.2.1995. 2. Learned Counsel for the insurance company has not challenged any of the facts found proved before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge. The grievance raised herein has been restricted as to whether the Insurance company Appellant can be held responsible for making the payment as the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger not covered u/s 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the reason being that the Appellant - insurance company had issued a third party insurance in favour of the insured as the Appellant did not cover the risk of the passenger traveling in a private jeep. 3. The Court confronted the learned Counsel for the Appellant insurance company as to whether he can be permitted to agitate the issue as in the judgment and order impugned the issue appears not to have been agitated at all. 4. Mr. P. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company made a statement at bar that this issue had been taken when the appeal was argued vigorously but not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while deciding the case. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar case, held as under: We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry 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 if a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party to call the attention of the very Judges.... 6. While deciding the said case the Hon'ble Apex. Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Madhusudan Chowdhri and Ors. v. Mst. Chandrabati Chowdhrain and Ors. AIR 1917 PC 30 ; and R.M.K.R.M. Somasundaram Chetty v. M.R.M.V.L. Subramanian Chetty AIR 1926 PC 136 . In the latter case, it has been observed as under: Judgment cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation. 7. v. Mst. Chandrabati Chowdhrain and Ors. AIR 1917 PC 30 ; and R.M.K.R.M. Somasundaram Chetty v. M.R.M.V.L. Subramanian Chetty AIR 1926 PC 136 . In the latter case, it has been observed as under: Judgment cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation. 7. A similar view had been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sarat Chandra Maiti and Others Vs. Bibhabati Debi and Others observing that the record of the Judge is conclusive and it is not permissible either for the lawyer or litigant to contradict it except by moving application before the same Judge. 8. In The King Emperor Vs. Barendra Kumar Ghose the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court reiterated the same view observing that the judgment of the Court "is not to be criticized or circumvented; much less has to be exposed to any animad version." 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, it emerges that the writ Court cannot conduct the enquiry as to what issues had been agitated before the Court below and if a party is aggrieved that some of the issues agitated by it have not been dealt by the said Court, the only remedy available to it is to file an application of Review before the same Hon'ble Judge as those issues cannot be dealt with by the Court in special appeal. 10. In view of the above, we are not in a position to ascertain as to whether the issue had really been agitated before the learned Single Judge. Merely taking a ground in the memo of appeal is not enough as Court is not bound to address to itself the issue not agitated at the time of hearing. In such a fact situation, the Appellant ought to have filed a review application immediately after the judgment was delivered. The issue was raised before the Tribunal also and it is evident from the award that contention so raised was rejected by the Tribunal recording the finding of fact as under: ....The Respondent No. 2 has not challenged the Ext. A (insurance certificate) at the time of its admission. No evidence has also been adduced on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 regarding the breach of any condition of the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question. A (insurance certificate) at the time of its admission. No evidence has also been adduced on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 regarding the breach of any condition of the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question. That being so, the Respondent No.,2 being the insurer shall be liable to indemnify the insured and pay the entire compensation to the applicants. 11. As the Appellant had not adduced any evidence to prove that there had been any violation of the condition incorporated in the policy even before the Tribunal, the issue so raised cannot be examined at this stage. 12. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed