ORDER 1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 25.10.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.8167/2012. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are as follows :- 1. That, on 17.1.2005, the applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.21,05,000/- against the non-applicant/defendant before the learned trial Court and alongwith the plaint 717 documents were filed. The non-applicant / defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. The evidence was closed and final arguments were heard and the case was fixed for judgment on 15.11.2011. On 14.11.2011, the applicant/plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to place on record the extract of “Register of Firms” maintained by the office of the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Indore. The plaintiff firm was registered on 13.10.1999 and the partner Vaibhav Rai alongwith others became partners of the plaintiff firm on 11.10.1999. The said extract was obtained on 14.11.2011 from the Office of Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies. The said extract is a public document and did not require and proof. It was very important document for just decision of the case. The said application was allowed on 27.7.2012 by the learned trial Court and the said extract containing the names of partners and date of registration of plaintiff firm was taken on record. 2. That the non-applicant / defendant filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No.8167/2012 against the impugned order of the learned trial Court whereby the application filed by the applicant/[plaintiff was allowed before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court allowed the petition on 25.10.2013 and set aside the impugned order Annexure P 11 to the petition) of the learned trial Court. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, the learned single Judge of this Court who disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent, committed error apparent on the face of the record by holding that the plaintiff wanted to place those bills on record, which were in its exclusive possession by two applications, which is not true. This Hon'ble Court misunderstood the whole case. In fact, one application was filed along with extract of the “Register of the Firms” in which the names of the partners were given along with the date of registration of the plaintiff firm. This Hon'ble Court misunderstood the whole case. In fact, one application was filed along with extract of the “Register of the Firms” in which the names of the partners were given along with the date of registration of the plaintiff firm. This is a public document which required no proof at all. This document can be filed at any stage of the case, even at the appellate stage. 4. We have gone through the impugned order in the light of the facts brought to our notice. Bare reading of the aforesaid order goes to show that in the said order, there is absolutely no reference to the document which was filed by the petitioner on record alongwith application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC with the registration certificate of the firm in question. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club reported in AIR 2005 SC 592 . In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that :- Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in order 47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit". 6. The words 'sufficient reason' in order 47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit". 6. A bare reading of the impugned order goes to show that while deciding the writ petition filed by the respondent, the trial Court while referring to number of other documents placed on record by the appellant along with plaint did not make mention of the document of the registration of Firm which was allowed by the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 14(3). 7. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order and remand back this matter to the learned single Judge to pass a fresh order on the writ petition filed by the respondent by specifically taking the document i.e. document of the registration of firm on record and to consider the filing of the same specifically, as was permitted by the lower Court of course in the light of the objection, which has brought to our notice also i.e. amendment of the CPC, which prohibits filing of such document. 8. The writ petition is restored. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 28.02.2014. 9. Accordingly, the Review Petition stands disposed of.