1. This is an application seeking recalling of an order dated 19 May 2025. By the said order this Court had inter-alia directed as follows:

                    “By consent of the parties, the demise of the respondent no. 8 is recorded and the remaining legal representatives who are admittedly not on record i.e. Mihika, Ishita, and Pragya, being the daughters of the petitioner are impleaded as party respondents. The petitioner is directed to effect service on the above individuals and file an Affidavit of Service on the returnable date.

                    The Department is directed to take necessary steps to effect amendments to the cause title of this proceeding.”

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that there was no formal application filed for recording the death of the respondent no.8 and consequentially for bringing her legal representatives on record. By such substitution, an objection of misjoinder raised by the applicant to the maintainability of the application under section 11 of the Act is indirectly sought to be cured. In view of the above, the order dated 19 May 2025 is liable to be recalled.

3. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that there are no reasons for recalling of the order dated 19 May 2025. The order was passed by consent of the parties. The applicant was duly represented and had consented to the order being passed. In fact, the filing of this application is simply a ruse to delay proceedings and is liable to be dismissed.

4. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, it has been held as follows:

                    “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.”

5. A similar view has been upheld in Shankar K. Mandal & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors (2003) 9 SCC 519, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Bureau Veritas and Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 265, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Income Tax Settlement & Anr. (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 21405

6. There is nothing in the application to remotely suggest that the submissions of the Advocate on behalf of the applicant were erroneously recorded in the order. On the contrary, the order dated 19 May 2025 is a correct reflection of what transpired in Court on that day. The order being passed by consent can only be recalled or modified or varied by consent of all the parties and the applicant is estopped from contending otherwise.

7. There is no challenge to the fact that the respondent alongwith her three daughters are the only legal representatives of the respondent no.8 and require to be substituted in place and stead of the respondent no.8. Regardless of how such substitution ultimately affects the merits of the application under section 11 of the Act, there are no grounds made out to recall or modify the order dated 19 May 2025.

8. In such circumstances, the application is meritless and dismissed. GACOM 2 of 2025 stands disposed of.