Neerja vs Union Of India & Anr.

$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7059/2026 & CM APPL. 34593/2026

Date of Decision : 20.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

NEERJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary Ms. Kuna
Sachdeva and Mr. Naveen Sharma,
Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Sr. Panel
Counsel.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. The present petition concerns the alleged deletion/alteration of order
dated 03.10.2024 purportedly passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission [ NCDRC ] in execution proceedings.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally Annexure P-1 order was
passed on 03.10.2024 which, however, was surreptitiously deleted and
instead Annexure P -2 order was uploaded.
3. When the petitioner approached the NCDRC by way of application
Annexure P-6 , the NCDRC passed an order on 25.03.2026 directing the
Registry to ensure that the certified copy of the signed order is handed over
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026
13:26:44
Page 1 of 4

to the complainant/petitioner.
4. It is thereafter, Annexure P-2 order was handed over to the petitioner
which, according to the petitioner, is not the same, which was originally
uploaded on 03.10.2024.
5. The petitioner has various evidences to substantiate his submissions
that the order which was uploaded on 03.10.2024 was different from the one
which was handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the NCDRC directions.
6. The Court thus finds that the nature of the grievance is required to be
appropriately considered by the NCDRC itself.
7. If a party believes that the proceedings in Court have been incorrectly
recorded or uploaded in the form of an order, the concerned Court has the
authority to correct the same. The said position has been reiterated by the
Supreme Court in various pronouncements. The reference can be made to
the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas
1
Nayak , relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted as under:
“ 4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney-General to the
concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for
the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for
the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us
intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and
invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High
Court. 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. “Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the
game of litigation.” [ Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram
Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136 : 99 IC 742] 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

1

(1982) 2 SCC 463
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026
13:26:44
Page 2 of 4

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 . [ Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan
Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain, AIR 1917 PC 30 : 42 IC 527] 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.
5. In R v. Mellor [(1858) 7 Cox CC 454 : 6 WR 322 : 169 ER 1084]
Martin, B. was reported to have said:
“We must consider the statement of the learned Judge as absolute
verity and we ought to take his statement precisely as a record and act on
it in the same manner as on a record of Court which of itself implies an
absolute verity.”
6. In King-Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose [AIR 1924 Cal 257 : 28
Cal WN 170 : 38 Cal LJ 411 : 25 Cri LJ 817] Page, J. said:
“... these proceedings emphasise the importance of rigidly
maintaining the rule that a statement by a learned Judge “as to what
took place during the course of a trial before him is final and decisive” :
It is not to be criticized or circumvented; much less is it to be exposed to
animadversion.”
7. In Sarat Chandra Maiti v. Bibhabati Debi [AIR 1921 Cal 584 : 34
Cal LJ 302 : 66 IC 433] Sir Asutosh Mookerjee explained what had to be
done:
“... It is plain that in cases of this character where a litigant feels
aggrieved by the statement in a judgment that an admission has been
made, the most convenient and satisfactory course to follow, wherever
practicable, is to apply to the Judge without delay and ask for
rectification or review of the judgment ...”
8. So the Judges' record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant
may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere
else. ”
[emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026
13:26:44
Page 3 of 4

8. The Court thus finds that the application Annexure P-6 has not been
appropriately considered and no enquiry seems to have been conducted
regarding the fact whether the order which the petitioner places reliance on
was actually uploaded on 03.10.20204 or there was no such order on that
date. Unless the finding is arrived at, the grievance of the petitioner would
not be fully mitigated.
9. Let the application of the petitioner be reconsidered by the NCDRC
and the specific findings be rendered regarding allegations made in the
application.
10. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
11. The petitioner is granted liberty to produce additional documents
before the NCDRC.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 20, 2026/P
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026
13:26:44
Page 4 of 4