Court record conclusive in review; affidavit and extrinsic evidence cannot contradict what transpired without timely correction.

Recorded proceedings and the judgment were treated as conclusive of what transpired in court, so a party could not contradict the record in review by affidavit or by reference to the order sheet. If the record was said to be inaccurate, the proper course was a prompt request to correct it before the same Bench. In the absence of an affidavit from the counsel who had argued the matter, and in light of delay and subsequent conduct, no reviewable error was shown and the application was viewed as lacking bona fides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any ground for recalling or modifying the earlier judgment on the basis that the recorded scope of hearing was limited and that certain conclusions travelled beyond the arguments actually advanced.

Analysis: The recorded proceedings and the judgment were treated as conclusive of what transpired in court. The Court declined to accept an attempt to contradict the judgment by affidavit or by reference to the order sheet, holding that the proper course, if the record was said to be inaccurate, was to promptly seek correction before the same Bench. In the absence of any affidavit from the counsel who had actually argued the matter and in view of the long delay and subsequent conduct, no reviewable error was established. The application was also viewed as lacking bona fides.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out; the review application failed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment remained undisturbed, and the review proceedings were terminated with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded in a judgment as to what transpired in court are conclusive and cannot be contradicted in review by affidavit or extrinsic evidence, absent a timely request to correct the record.

---