The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision, which falls under the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This is an application for review of an order dated 30 July, 2018 whereby a co- ordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member (Arijit Banerjee, J.) disposed of APO 202 of 2017 along with the connected application. The material facts of the case culminating in the present review application are as follows.

2. In an arbitration proceeding between the parties hereto a consent award dated 3 January, 2013 was passed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties as recorded in a document dated 1 January, 2013. The said award was put in execution by both the groups (Suresh Kumar Jain Group and Hulash Chand Jain Group) resulting in institution of two execution cases before the learned Single Judge being EC No. 144 of 2016 (Hulash Chand Jain & Ors. vs. Suresh Kumar Jain & Ors.) and EC No. 873 of 2015 (Suresh Kumar Jain & Ors. -vs- Madanlal Jain & Ors.). The said execution cases were heard from time to time by the learned Single Judge. On 4 March, 2016 on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in EC No. 144 of 2016 the learned Judge directed by way of an interim order, inter alia, that the custodian appointed under the Arbitral Award shall not part with the documents that he was holding till March 11, 2016 or until further orders. The execution applications were posted for hearing on 11 March, 2016. On that date an order was passed by the learned Single Judge extending the interim order dated 4 March, 2016.

3. Being aggrieved by the said orders dated 4 March 2016 and 11 March, 2016 the petitioners in EC No. 873 of 2015 (Suresh Kumar Jain & Ors.) preferred an appeal being APOT No. 81 of 2016 and filed a stay application therein being GA No. 862 of 2016. The said appeal and the application were heard by the Division Bench from time to time and various orders were passed thereon.

4. On 30 July, 2018 a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal and the stay application by passing the following order:-

"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The custodian namely Kamlesh Sogani is directed to prepare an inventory of the documents which are lying in his custody in presence of representatives of the parties within one month from date. After completion of such inventory, the custodian shall hand over the documents to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. The Registrar, Original Side shall hold the documents in his safe custody and shall act in terms of the orders that may be passed by the learned single Judge. Parties shall cooperate with the custodian in preparing inventory of the documents as aforesaid.

Parties shall arrange for containers for keeping the documents. Upon handing over the documents to the Registrar, Original Side, the custodian shall stand discharged.

The interim order that was passed by the learned single Judge is modified to the extent as indicated above.

If the parties have any further prayer, they should make such prayer before the learned single Judge in the execution proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the custodian that the custodian was granted liberty to file affidavit which has not yet been filed. We put on record that the allegations made against the custodian by the parties in their pleadings are deemed not to be admitted. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Thus, the appeal and connected application is disposed of accordingly."

This is the order under review in the present application.

5. Appearing for the review petitioners Mr. Anirban Roy, learned Advocate urged that there is an error apparent on the face of the order under review inasmuch as the same amounts to modification of the arbitral award in question. The Arbitral Tribunal had appointed the custodian to hold documents pertaining to the properties being the subject matter of arbitration and to facilitate implementation of the award. The award has not yet been implemented. Hence, the portion of the order under review