K.K.Manchanda & Anr. vs Sd Technical Services P. Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2406 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                 Date of Reserve: May 22, 2009
                                                    Date of Order: July 01, 2009

+RA 320/2008 in CM(M) 1205/2007
%                                                                          01.07.2009
     K.K. Manchanda & Anr.                                          ...Petitioner
     Through : Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate

       Versus

       SD Technical Services P.Ltd.                    ...Respondent
       Through: Mr. G.S. Raghav with Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       ORDER

1. This review application has been made by the applicant for review of

the order dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by this Court in the instant petition

whereby this Court dismissed the CM (Main) petition. The applicant in ground

of review stated that this Court while dismissing the petition of the petitioner

vide order dated 22nd August 2008, observed that the record clerk cannot be

allowed to exhibit the photocopies or computerized details of amount stated

in the document since the document was not duly proved. It is submitted that

the documents exhibited were not independent documents but annexed as a

part of the plaint filed by respondent. He submitted that the plaint along

with annexures formed pleadings and if the respondent had taken a particular

stand in the pleadings of a case, the petitioner has a right to bring on record

the stand taken by respondent in that case. It is submitted by applicant that

in the impugned order there is no mention of this fact neither this fact was

CM(M) 1205/2007 KK Manchanda & Anr. v SD Technical Services P. Ltd. Page 1 Of 3 mentioned by petitioner earlier since documents were independently

exhibited. The petitioner wanted to place on record the documents annexed

with the plaint of the earlier case but the same were not allowed on the

ground that mere exhibiting the document does not prove the document.

2. The review application is vehemently opposed by respondent on the

ground that no ground for review was made out. There was no error apparent

on the record and the Court had rightly dismissed the instant petition.

3. It is not disputed by respondent that the documents sought to be

placed on record of the case by the petitioner are part of the pleadings in

another case between the same parties and have been made as annexures to

the plaint by the respondent. It is obvious that when the petition was argued

earlier, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court.

4. It is settled law that admissions/denials of the party and opposite side

in a case form part of pleadings. It is also settled law that all annexures

attached to the plaint or written statement become part of the pleadings. In

order to bring on record the pleadings of a party in another case, it is not

necessary that the annexures should have been exhibited or proved. A

document filed by a party as a part of plaint can always be read against the

party even if it is not proved. In the order passed by this Court on 22nd August

2008, this Court had made observations regarding proving of documents and

that the documents exhibited may not have been duly proved. However, the

facts stated in this review application show that what the petitioner intends to

bring on record was the stand taken by respondent in the earlier pleadings

regarding rate of rent.

CM(M) 1205/2007 KK Manchanda & Anr. v SD Technical Services P. Ltd. Page 2 Of 3

5. I, therefore, consider that the petitioner was entitled to bring on record

the stand taken by respondent in the pleadings in another case. In order to

bring on record the same, the petitioner can prove the plaint along with

annexures by summoning the record clerk or by filing certified copies of the

plaint (with annexures). The petitioner had a right to bring on record the

stand of respondent irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner had earlier

filed a copy of plaint of respondent or not.

6. Resultantly, the review application is allowed to the extent that

applicant/petitioner would be allowed to prove the entire plaint of respondent

in suit bearing number 1134 of 1994 along with annexure by summoning the

record clerk and proving the plaint with annexures. The annexures cannot be

separately considered but can only be considered as part of the plaint and

that would give the proper idea as to why the annexures have been annexed

and how the contents of annexures have been relied upon in the party.

7. The review application stands disposed of in above terms.

July 01, 2009                                       SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 1205/2007     KK Manchanda & Anr. v SD Technical Services P. Ltd.   Page 3 Of 3