CM(M) 1205/2007 KK Manchanda & Anr. v SD Technical Services P. Ltd. Page 1 Of 3 * 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 2 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 3 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