JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. The appellate court has passed the order dated 27.5.2015, inter-alia, indicating the consent of the petitioners. 2. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not given any consent for passing of the order, inasmuch as, for the nature of the order passed by the appellate court, no consent could have been given by the petitioners/counsel for the petitioners and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be interfered with. 3. So far as order-sheet dated 27.5.2015 (Annex.7) is concerned, the same clearly indicates. ^fygktk mHk; i{k dh lgefr ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ls 3 ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh varfje vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkrh gSA* 4. The present petition seeking to question the consent recorded in the order dated 27.5.2015 is not maintainable. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 has observed as under :- "The Court is bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. It 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. 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. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. 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." 6. In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to act appropriately including filing review petition before the first appellate court. Petition dismissed.