TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of order: 8th August, 2024
+ CS(OS) 361/2012

TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD …..Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Divya Kapoor, Advocate.
versus

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA &ANR …..Defendants
Through: Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Advocate for D-2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
REVIEW PETITION 150/2023
1. The instant review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking review of the judgment dated 29th March, 2023 passed by this Court in application bearing IA No. 8392/2018.
2. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter “the Act”) seeking permission to place on record additional documents. Vide the impugned judgment, the said application was dismissed by this Court on various grounds, one of them being, the application was filed to delay the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment is bad in law and there is an error apparent on the face of the record which makes the impugned judgment liable to be set aside.
4. It is submitted that this Court committed an error apparent in failing to apply the test under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for placing the documents on record that were not in the power, possession, control or custody of the petitioner herein at the time of filing of the captioned suit.
5. It is submitted that this Court failed to appreciate that the test in Order XI Rule 1 (5) read with Order XI Rule 1 (12) of the Act, 2015 is that the documents that were not in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit do not require the plaintiff to show reasonable cause, or indeed even to seek leave of the Court to file the said documents.
6. It is submitted that it is the right and duty of the plaintiff to file all the documents that come to his attention during the course of the suit and the Court cannot deny the right to bring the said documents on record.
7. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the position of law with respect to the documents being filed under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015, wherein, it has been specifically held that rigors of Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015, applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint.
8. It is further submitted that it has been clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734, that no reasonable ground for non- disclosure of such documents, as required under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015 needs to be established by the plaintiff in cases where it has been averred that the documents sought to be placed on record have been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was filed.
9. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4012, while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rigours of Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC, as amended by the Act, 2015 are applicable only on the documents which were in the possession and control of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the documents along with the plaint and not on such documents, which came into existence subsequent to the filing of the plaint, i.e., post dated documents.
10. It is submitted that this Court failed to appreciate the fact that the additional documents sought to be placed on record by way of IA No. 8392/2017 were received by the petitioner only on 29th May, 2018, when Mr. Nikhil Sharma sought for the same by way of an RTI application i.e., subsequent to and much after filing of the captioned civil suit in the year 2012. Therefore, as per the settled law, the petitioner was not required to establish any reasonable grounds of non-disclosure and non-filing of the said documents along with the plaint.
11. It is submitted that this Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to notice the record in the form of orders passed in the captioned suit and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by the Predecessor Bench of this Court, which clearly establishes that the captioned suit is a commercial dispute and within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
12. It is submitted that the order dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in the captioned suit records that it is agreed between the parties that the matter be treated as a commercial matter and in view of the same, it was ordered accordingly. Further, the order dated 8th February, 2016 also records the submission of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petition herein (originally plaintiff) that in view of Section 4 and Section 15 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, the issue regarding power of the Court of Joint Registrar to hear and decide the application also needs to be considered. Furthermore, it was held vide order dated 11th February, 2016, passed in the captioned suit that the Joint Registrar will have the powers to decide the interlocutory applications inasmuch as there is no bar stating otherwise in the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. Thus, it can be clearly seen from the orders passed in the captioned suit that the matter was being proceeded with as per the provisions under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
13. It is submitted that whilst passing the impugned judgment, this Court failed to appreciate that the documents sought to be filed are crucial and central to the adjudication of the captioned suit as the case of the petitioner herein is inter alia that the derivative transactions are void being in violation of the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter “RBI”) guidelines and the said documents are clear evidence of the RBI holding that the said transactions are in violation of the RBI guidelines.
14. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for.
15. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/defendant No.2 vehemently opposed the instant review petition submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
16. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to impugn the judgment on grounds/facts that do not fall within the purview/domain of a review as laid down in the CPC and under the garb of the present petition, the petitioner is merely trying to reargue its case, which clearly is not permissible within the contours of a review as laid down under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The petition as such, is liable to be dismissed.
17. It is submitted that bare perusal of the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner along with IA no. 8392/2018 were in possession of the petitioner much prior to filing of the application in question. Yet the petitioner was mischievously seeking discovery of the said document from the respondent/defendant herein in terms of IA no. 25111/2015.
18. It is further submitted that it is only after the discovery of the said documents was given up and the petitioner moved the application to place on record the same set of documents sought to be discovered earlier.
19. It is submitted that the application bearing IA No. 8932/2018 has, thus, been rightly dismissed by this Court and the present petition being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
20. It is submitted that merely because there is a duty to disclose documents in its power and possession enjoined upon the petitioner, it does not suo motu mean that the petitioner has unfettered rights to keep on producing documents at any stage without leave of the Court. This kind of an erroneous interpretation would defeat the intent of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
21. It is submitted that the entire story of the petitioner is a complete afterthought. The entire application is silent about who is Mr. Nikhil Sharma and as to why and how he applied for RTI of the said documents or how he came to know that the petitioner required the said documents.
22. It is submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on which the petitioner has relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the consent of the petitioner herein was given by the plaintiff in the hearing on 2nd May, 2018 on the count that this Court was of the opinion that the said documents were neither necessary nor germane to the controversy in the suit. It is further submitted that if this was not the case, then why did the petitioner inform the Court on the said date itself that now it has the document, in question, in its power and possession and thus, did not require it from the defendant/respondent No.2. It is submitted that the entire story of the petitioner is a gross misuse of process of law.
23. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant review petition may be dismissed.
24. It is the case of the petitioner this Court erred by not correctly applying the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding the filing of documents. It has been asserted that under Order XI Rule 1 (5) and (12) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015, the documents not in its possession at the time of filing the suit do not require the petitioner to provide reasonable cause or seek the Court’s permission for submission. The petitioner emphasizes that it is its right and duty to introduce documents discovered during the course of the suit, and the Court cannot refuse this right. It has been argued that that the requirements of the Act, 2015 apply only to documents in possession at the time of filing, not to those discovered later. It has been contended that the additional documents in question were received after the suit was filed, thus not requiring them to prove non-disclosure at the time of filing. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that this Court overlooked that the suit was classified as a commercial dispute under the Act, 2015 as reflected in prior orders and lastly, it has been submitted that the documents are crucial to the case, which involves proving violations of Reserve Bank of India guidelines through these documents.
25. In rival submissions, the respondent has refuted the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the instant review petition are nothing but grounds for appeal and the same is outside the purview of the scope of review. It has been submitted that the impugned judgment has rightly appreciated the settled position of law and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 2nd May, 2018 wherein the petitioner had consented and gave up the said documents and the instant petition is an attempt to delay the proceedings.
26. Therefore, the issue before this Court is to ascertain whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record which makes the impugned judgment liable to be reviewed.
27. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is imperative to understand the powers of this Court under the review jurisdiction.
28. It is a well settled principle of law that the power of review is exercised in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and in such an event the order or judgment can be corrected.
29. A Court cannot act as an appellate Court for its own judgments, nor can it allow the petitions for review based only on the claim that one of the parties believes the judgment proven bane for them.
30. If the matters that the Court has already adjudicated upon could be reopened and reheard, the same would be detrimental to the public interest. The same was also held in the judgment of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon’ble Supreme Court carved out the essential principles qua review and held as under:
“…14. Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. This Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India [1980 Supp SCC 562 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 381] held as under: (SCC p. 566, para 12)
“12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 305 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 184 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200] this Court observed: (SCC p. 675, para 1)
‘1. … A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. … The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.’”
15. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. This Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held as under: (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 7-9)
“7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372] this Court opined: (AIR p. 1377, para 11)
‘11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an “error apparent on the face of the record”. The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an “error apparent on the face of the record”, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.’
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.”
(emphasis in original)..”

31. In light of the aforesaid judicial dicta, it is made out that the power of review is exercised in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and in such an event the order or judgment can be corrected or set aside. A Court cannot act as an appellate Court for its own judgments, nor can it allow the petitions for review based only on the claim that one of the parties believes the judgment has wronged him. If matters that the Court has already decided on could be reopened and reheard, the same would be detrimental to the public interest. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise as it does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
32. At this stage, this Court shall peruse the impugned judgment, relevant extracts of which are as under:
“…23. According to Order XI Rule 1 ( 5) of the CPC, in order to be authorised to submit the additional documents on record after a passage of more than 30 days from the date of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff must show reasonable cause for failing to reveal them along with the plaint.

24. This Court finds that the present application has been filed under the commercial division of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite the same being a Civil Suit. However, filing the said application under the wrong nomenclature would not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate upon the said application, as the same has been settled in catena of judgements by the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court and this Court.

25. This Court has taken into consideration the order dated 2nd May, 2018 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court whereby the appeal preferred by the defendant No. 2 herein was partly allowed, on consent, with respect to disclosure of the documents mentioned in paras 6 and 9 of the I.A. bearing no. 25111/2015. The relevant extract of the order dated 2nd May, 2018 is reproduced hereunder:

“13. Accordingly, the Chamber Appeal, insofar as against the order directing the appellant/defendant to make disclosure of the other documents mentioned in paras 6 & 9 of I.A. No. 251 11/2015 is allowed on consent and the order of the Joint Registrar to that extend is set aside and the appeal, insofar as directing disclosure of the documents in para 9(1) of the application supra is concerned, is dismissed ”

26. In light of the above, this Court is of the view that the present application filed by the plaintiff is an attempt to delay the proceedings and is gross misuse of process of law and therefore, liable to dismissed.

27. Accordingly, the present application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

33. Upon perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned judgment, it is made out that the petitioner/plaintiff/applicant therein had filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 (5) read with Order XI Rule 1 (12) of the Act, 2015 seeking permission of the Court to place on record additional documents which the petitioner could not file at the time of filing of the captioned suit as the same were not in its possession.
34. This Court addressed the application for submitting additional documents filed for more than 30 days after the plaint, as per Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a reasonable cause for not including them initially. Despite the application being filed under the commercial division nomenclature rather than as a civil suit, the Court maintained its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, citing consistent judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court.
35. Further, the Court considered a prior order from 2nd May, 2018, where a Predecessor Bench of this Court had partly allowed an appeal concerning the disclosure of certain documents, setting aside part of a Joint Registrar’s order while dismissing the appeal concerning other documents. This Court concluded that the aforementioned application by the plaintiff was an attempt to delay proceedings and constituted a misuse of the legal process. Consequently, the application was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed.
36. The petitioner herein has contended that the impugned judgment is erroneous on the following points:
a. The captioned suit is a commercial suit, covered under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
b. The dismissal of the application to bring on record additional documents is against the settled law. It should not be seen whether the documents are relevant or not, rather, only a connection between the dispute and the documents is required to be seen.
c. The petitioner never gave up its assertion to place on record the additional documents.
37. In the impugned judgment, it was observed by this Court that the application in question, was file under the commercial division of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, despite the same being a Civil Suit, however, filing the said application under the wrong nomenclature would not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate upon the said application, as the same has been settled in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court.
38. With regard to the above, it is held that the said finding is erroneous since the order dated 16th December, 2015, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court, clearly record that it was agreed between the parties to the present suit that the captioned suit be treated as commercial matter.
39. Thus, it is held that the provisions, under which the application in question was filed, i.e., Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC, as amended by the Act, 2015, is correct and in accordance with the law as well as the admitted position of facts. Accordingly, the finding made in the impugned judgment stands corrected.
40. The other issue before this Court is that the petitioner contends that the dismissal of the application to bring on record additional documents is against the settled law as it should not be seen whether the documents are relevant or not, rather, only a connection between the dispute and the documents is required to be seen while adjudicating an application under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC, as amended by the Act, 2015. Relevant portion of the said provision is as under:
“..1. Disclosure and discovery of documents. –
(1) Plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint, including:
***
***
(5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiffs power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint…”

41. According to Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015, in order to be authorized to submit the additional documents on record after a passage of more than 30 days from the date of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff must show reasonable cause for failing to reveal them along with the plaint within the prescribed time period and the said documents can only be brought on record by seeking leave of the Court.
42. At this stage, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the settled position of law with regard to the aforementioned provision. In the judgment of Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“..9.5. Order 11 Rule 1(5) further provides that the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint. Therefore on combined reading of Order 11 Rule 1(4) read with Order 11 Rule 1(5), it emerges that (i) in case of urgent filings the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents; (ii) within thirty days of filing of the suit; (iii) making out a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint.
9.6. Therefore a further thirty days’ time is provided to the plaintiff to place on record or file such additional documents in court and a declaration on oath is required to be filed by the plaintiff as was required as per Order 11 Rule 1(3) if for any reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint, the documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore the plaintiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint. However, at the same time, the requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the plaint shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was filed. Therefore Order 11 Rule 1(4) and Order 11 Rule 1(5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non-disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint.
***
10.3. Even the reason given by the learned Commercial Court that the invoices being suspicious and therefore not granting leave to produce the said invoices cannot be accepted. At the stage of granting leave to place on record additional documents the court is not required to consider the genuineness of the documents/additional documents, the stage at which genuineness of the documents to be considered during the trial and/or even at the stage of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 that too while considering prima facie case. Therefore, the learned Commercial Court ought to have granted leave to the plaintiff to rely on/produce the invoices as mentioned in the application as additional documents…”

43. Perusal of the aforesaid excerpts of the judgment reveals that Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as amended by the Act, 2015 specifies that plaintiffs cannot rely on documents that were in their possession, power, control, or custody at the time of filing the plaint but were not disclosed, except with the Court’s leave. This leave is granted only if the plaintiff can establish a reasonable cause for the non-disclosure.
44. A combined reading of Order XI Rule 1(4) and Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as amended by the Act, 2015 indicates that a plaintiff can seek leave to rely on additional documents if they file for it within thirty days of the suit’s filing and provide a reasonable cause for not disclosing these documents initially.
45. It is further observed by this Court that an additional thirty days are granted to the plaintiff to file or place such documents on record, along with a declaration on oath explaining the reasonable cause for the initial non-disclosure. However, if the plaintiff claims that the documents were discovered after the plaint was filed and were not in their possession, power, control, or custody at the time of filing, the requirement to establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure does not apply. Therefore, the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(4) and Rule 1(5) of the CPC in commercial suits are relevant only for documents initially within the plaintiff’s power but not disclosed. The requirement to establish a reasonable cause is not applicable for documents discovered post-filing of the plaint.
46. In light of the case in hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the plaintiff filed the instant suit with all pertinent documents in its possession at the time of filing. On 29th May, 2018, the plaintiff received important RBI documentations from one Mr. Nikhil Sharma, which he had obtained through an RTI request. These records are consistent with the claims made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 26 and 30 of the plaint. It has been further submitted that the aforementioned documents were not in the possession of the plaintiff and, thus, could not be presented until now despite the requisite care. The following documents are sought to be brought on record:
a. Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by the RBI under Section 35, 35 A, 46 and 47 A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 on the basis of Annual Financial Inspection.
b. Reply filed by the Banks to the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by the RBI.
c. Consequent penalty imposed by the RBI on the Banks.
47. The settled position of law, as discussed hereinabove states that at the stage of granting leave to file additional documents, the Court should not consider the genuineness of these documents and the assessment of genuineness is appropriate during the stage of trial. Further, the requirement of establishing reasonable cause shall not come in the way, if it is averred that the documents were discovered subsequently and were not in plaintiff’s power, possession control or custody when the plaint was filed. A corollary to the said principle is that the documents which come into existence subsequent to the filing of the suit are saved from the rigours of showing reasonable cause for non-disclosure.
48. In paragraph No. 5 of the application bearing IA no. 8392/2018 file along with the affidavit of one Mr. Ashish Tiwari (Authorized Representative of the petitioner company), the petitioner has stated that it had filed all the relevant documents along with the suit which were in its possession at the time of the filing, however, the additional documents (named hereinabove) came into the possession of the petitioner only on 29th May, 2018 when the petitioner received certain essential documents from one Mr. Nikhil Sharma which he had received by way of RTI. Further, the said documents are in consistence with the pleadings in paragraph nos. 26 and 30 of the plaint. It has been further stated that the said documents were not in the petitioner’s possession and therefore, could not be produced at the time of filing. The relevant excerpt is as under:
“..5. The Plaintiff filed the present suit along with all the relevant documents that it had in its possession at the time of filing of the suit. On 29.05.2018, the Plaintiff received certain essential RBI documents from W one Nikhil Sharma, which he had received by way of RTI. The said documents are in consistence with the Plaintiffs pleadings in para 26 and 30 of the plaint. It is submitted that the said documents were not in the Plaintiffs possession and therefore could not be produced till now despite necessary due diligence. Annexed herewith as Annexure A is a copy of the letter dated 29.05.2018, through which Nikhil Sharma shared with the Plaintiff, the response along with the documents that he received in pursuance to his RTI query…”

49. The paragraphs No. 26 and 30 of the plaint are as under:
“..26. Meanwhile, on April 26, 2011, the RBI came out with a circular imposing a penalty on several banks in relation to foreign exchange derivative transactions of the nature entered into with the Plaintiff Company on grounds of “contravention of various instructions issued by the Defendant No.1 in respect of derivatives, such as failure to carry out due diligence in regard to suitability of products, selling derivative products to users not having risk management policies and not verifying the underlying/adequacy of underlying and eligible limits under past performance route”.
***
30. The Plaintiff Company has also now realized that it was not only the Plaintiff company that suffered. But, from 2006 to 2008, several other companies were sold such products by the Defendant Bank and other such banks, in complete violation of each and every law and guideline. The banks aggressively approached several business entities, and acting as advisors on foreign exchange derivative products, recommended various exotic derivative products which, as has subsequently become clear, were completely inappropriate for hedging and imposed upon the business entities unconscionable risks of loss, and corresponding gains to the bank, which had they been aware of at the time, they would have never entered into such transactions…”

50. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid documents (mentioned in paragraph No. 46 of the instant order), which the petitioner intends to place on record, prima facie reveal some connection with the prayer sought in the captioned suit, dispute between the parties and the issues framed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court.
51. Further, this Court is also of the view that no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/defendant as the evidence is yet to be conducted/adduced by the parties, therefore, the respondent/defendant would have sufficient opportunities to object to the said documents.
52. Moreover, the petitioner has stated on affidavit that the said documents could not be filed along with the plaint since the same were not in its possession, rather, they were received by the petitioner vide letter dated 28th May, 2018, by one Mr. Nikhil Sharma, who had received the same by way of RTI application dated 14th June, 2016 (the said letter is appended as Annexure – A along with the application bearing IA no. 8392/2018).
53. This Court has also taken into consideration the objection of the respondent that no connection has been revealed qua Mr. Nikhil Sharma. In view of the same, it is stated that in terms of the settled position of law, as discussed herein above, this Court has to apply the standard of test as per which, at the stage of granting leave to place on record additional documents, the Court is not required to determine the authenticity, admissibility, or relevancy of the documents, and that these considerations would arise at the time of trial.
54. Henceforth, this Court deems it fit to hold that upon a prima facie view, the additional documents are necessary for the adjudication of the captioned suit in view of the allegations of the petitioner that the transaction was in violation of RBI guidelines. Accordingly, it is held that there is error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment and thus, the observations made qua the instant issue in the impugned judgment stands reviewed.
55. Lastly, the respondent has contended that the consent of the petitioner was recorded in the order dated 2nd May, 2018 and the application bearing IA no. 8392/2018 was dismissed by setting aside the order of the Joint Registrar wherein the defendant was directed to file the affidavit of discovery of documents.
56. With regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the said argument is baseless and without any legal backing as the said consent was only qua the application bearing IA no. 25111/2015, i.e., plea of discovery and production, which was filed under Order XI Rule 12 and 13 of the CPC, thereby, seeking discovery and production of documents from the defendant/respondent no. 2, and pertinently, the application in question was filed under Order XI Rule 1 (5) read with Order XI Rule 1 (12) of the Act, 2015, seeking permission from the Court to place on record the additional documents.
57. This Court is of the considered view that both the aforesaid applications were filed for different purpose and both the applications were based on different legal footing impacting different kind of rights of the parties.
58. Further, it is apposite to state that the consent of the petitioner record in the order dated 2nd May, 2018, is qua the application bearing IA no. 25111/2015, which was for discovery and production of documents, and the said consent cannot be taken as concession on the part of the petitioner that it does not wish to rely on the said documents as it is nowhere pleaded or recorded in any order that the petitioner is conceding to the relevancy of the documents.
59. It is also pertinent to state here that the records of the instant case showcase that the petitioner did not give up its assertion to bring on record the additional documents and merely stating that the consent of the petitioner was recorded in the order dated 2nd May, 2018 is not a valid argument as by way of the application in question, the petitioner agitated the issue of bringing on record the additional documents. Perusal of the records and the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs reveals that the petitioner only gave up the plea of discovery and production of the documents, but did not give up the plea of relevancy of the additional documents. Therefore, the said argument of the respondent does not hold any water.
60. This Court is of the view that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an error alleged by the review petitioner must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out.
61. In simpliciter terms, the said error must be an error of inadvertence as the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view already taken to conclude the case. Further, the mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.
62. However, in the instant case, the errors alleged by the petitioner are apparent on the face of the record, as also noted in the foregoing paragraphs, and thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed and corrected.
63. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 29th March, 2023 passed by this Court in application bearing IA no. 8392/2018 stands reviewed and corrected. Accordingly, the instant review petition is allowed.
64. In view of the above, the relief sought by way of the application bearing IA no. 8392/2018 is granted and accordingly, the petitioner/plaintiff is directed to file the additional documents which it sought to bring on record in the said application. Upon filing the same, the registry is directed to take the said additional documents on record as additional documents in the suit. The petitioner/plaintiff is also directed to supply the copy of the additional documents to the respondents/defendants.
65. It may be noted that nothing expressed hereinabove shall be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
66. Accordingly, the instant review petition stands disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.
67. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

CS(OS) 361/2012
Subject to the orders of Hon’ble the Judge In-charge (Original Side), list before the Roster Bench on 16th August, 2024 for further proceedings.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J
AUGUST 8, 2024
Dy/ryp/av

REVIEW PETITION 150/2023 Page 24 of 24