Filing counsel bears responsibility for full disclosure and cannot shift blame to clients.

The review petition challenged paragraphs 45–53 and the last two sentences of paragraph 56 of the Division Bench’s judgment dated 20 August 2026, which had addressed repeated suppression of documents and imposed costs of ₹10 lakhs.

The petition was filed not by the respondent-plaintiff but by its counsel on record in his personal capacity and was supported by the counsel’s own affidavit.

The applicant argued that the Court had incorrectly relied on an earlier order imposing costs, an order concerning suppression in another proceeding, and the alleged non-disclosure of a legal notice dated 29 October 2025 and trademark objections dated 27 January 2026.

The Division Bench had earlier found a repeated pattern of suppression by the same filing counsel and held that the interim injunction ought not to continue in light of the suppression.

Whether the earlier findings concerning suppression of documents and the existence of a repeated pattern of suppression disclosed any ground for review?

Whether the filing counsel could avoid responsibility for non-disclosure by asserting that the plaintiff had not specifically brought the relevant documents to counsel’s attention?

Whether the challenges to the materiality of the suppressed documents and the merits of the impugned judgment were maintainable in review jurisdiction?

Whether the counsel, filing the review petition in his personal capacity, had locus to seek review of the costs imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff?

The Court applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction, holding that a review cannot be used to re-argue the merits or challenge factual and legal findings already rendered.

It relied on *Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement*, (2024) 6 SCC 401, for the principle that advocates, as officers of the court, must diligently verify facts from the record and assist the court fairly.

It further relied on *Jitender @ Kalla v. State of GNCTD & Ors.*, (2025) 10 SCC 705, which holds that the filing Advocate-on-Record is responsible for checking pleadings and annexures, ensuring correct factual instructions, preventing suppression, and cannot shift the entire blame to the client or instructing counsel.

The Court also applied the principle that a person who is not aggrieved by an order has no locus to seek review of that order; consequently, counsel acting in his personal capacity could not seek review of costs imposed upon the respondent.

The Court held that the interim stay of costs in the earlier proceedings did not undermine its reliance on the underlying findings of suppression, particularly because the final order setting aside the costs by consent had already been considered in the impugned judgment.

Similarly, the Division Bench’s later decision in the other suppression matter had been expressly considered and did not justify review.

As to the legal notice and trademark objections, the Court found that these documents were included in the bundle filed with the plaint.

A filing counsel has an independent obligation to scrutinise the pleadings and documents before filing them; that obligation cannot be disclaimed on the ground that the client failed to separately draw attention to the documents.

The applicant’s challenge to the documents’ materiality, the dismissal of the interim injunction, and the distinction from *Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v. Anchor Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.* amounted to an impermissible re-argument on merits.

The Court also rejected the analogy with *Rajat Chawla*, observing that the precedent in that case had been expressly relied upon by the defendant and that its subsequent setting aside had not been brought to the Single Judge’s attention by either party or counsel.

Finally, since the review was filed by counsel personally rather than by the respondent against whom costs had been imposed, counsel lacked locus to challenge the costs direction.

The challenge to the costs direction was held not maintainable because the petition had been filed by counsel in his personal capacity and he had no locus to seek review of costs imposed on the respondent.

The review petition was accordingly dismissed.