Review is maintainable to correct impleadment orders based on erroneous assumptions of successor liability without documentary evidence.

The appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit in 2013 for permanent injunction and damages of Rs. 100 crores regarding a defamatory news item broadcasted that year.

In 2016, the Trial Court allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead Respondent No. 5 as a defendant on the assumption that it had taken over the management of the original defendants.

Respondent No. 5 challenged this in the High Court but withdrew the writ petition with liberty to seek a review before the Trial Court.

On June 24, 2025, the Trial Court allowed the review petition, holding that Respondent No. 5 was wrongly impleaded as it entered the picture only in 2016 and a subsequent Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) order clarified there was no change in management control.

The appellant challenged this review order in the present miscellaneous appeal.

1. Whether the doctrine of dominus litis gives the plaintiff an absolute right to implead any party as a defendant.

2. Whether a court can exercise review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC based on the discovery of new evidence or subsequent events, such as an order from a quasi-judicial authority.

The court applied Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, which subjects the doctrine of dominus litis to judicial scrutiny to ensure only necessary parties are joined.

It relied on Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and Section 114 of the CPC, which permit review for "discovery of new and important matter" or "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record".

The court cited Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (AIR 1970 SC 1273) to establish that a court may consider subsequent events to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The court cited Surjit Singh v. Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 592 regarding the duty to correct apparent mistakes.

Conversely, it distinguished State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612, noting that while an erroneous view of law isn't a ground for review, a factual error visible on the record is.

The Court reasoned that dominus litis is not absolute; the plaintiff must demonstrate a cause of action against the sought party.

It found that the original 2016 impleadment order was "erroneous on the face of it" because it was based on mere assumptions regarding the "takeover" of management without examining any supporting documents or financial liability terms.

The Court held that the 2021 SAT order—which explicitly found that Respondent No. 5 did not control the management or affairs of the original defendants—constituted "new and important evidence" under Order 47 Rule 1.

The Court concluded that since the alleged defamatory act occurred in 2013 and Respondent No. 5’s involvement (if any) began in 2016 without a transfer of prior tortious liabilities, there was no cause of action against them.

It held that the Trial Court correctly exercised its review jurisdiction to rectify a visible error and consider relevant subsequent findings by the SAT.

The court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant.