A tenant’s defence against his ejectment was struck off. The landlord claimed an eviction decree straight away. The tenant asserted right to participate in the proceedings...... Decide the controversy. Give reasons.
Find the mains answer only at Legal Bites.
Question: A tenant’s defence against his ejectment was struck off. The landlord claimed an eviction decree straight away. The tenant asserted right to participate in the proceedings, cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses, lead evidence in defence and rebuttal, and address arguments. Decide the controversy. Give reasons.Find the mains answer only at Legal Bites. [A tenant’s defence against his ejectment was struck off. The landlord claimed an eviction decree straight away. The...
Question: A tenant’s defence against his ejectment was struck off. The landlord claimed an eviction decree straight away. The tenant asserted right to participate in the proceedings, cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses, lead evidence in defence and rebuttal, and address arguments. Decide the controversy. Give reasons.
Find the mains answer only at Legal Bites. [A tenant’s defence against his ejectment was struck off. The landlord claimed an eviction decree straight away. The tenant asserted right to participate in the proceedings, cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses, lead evidence in defence and rebuttal, and address arguments. Decide the controversy. Give reasons.]
Answer
The Facts of the present proposition are similar to a case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, [1989 AIR 162].
A Perusal of Order XI, Rule 21 shows that where a defence is to be struck off in the circumstances mentioned therein, the order would be that the defendant "be placed in the same position as if he has not defended". This indicates that once the defence is struck off under Order XI, Rule 21, the position would be as if the defendant had not defended and accordingly the suit would proceed ex parte. In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, [1955] 2 SCR 1, it was held that if the court proceeds ex parte against the defendant under Order IX, Rule 6(a), the defendant is still entitled to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case the court may pass a decree for the plaintiff. If the plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case, the court may dismiss the plaintiff's suit.
The defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff's case. In no circumstances should the cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond this legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendant's case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to the plaintiff's witnesses.
Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X
Mayank Shekhar
Mayank is an alumnus of the prestigious Faculty of Law, Delhi University. Under his leadership, Legal Bites has been researching and developing resources through blogging, educational resources, competitions, and seminars.
