CPCWritten statementSupreme Court of India

Modula India v Kamakhya Singh Deo

AIR 1989 SC 162; (1988) 4 SCC 619; 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 33319881 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
In a landlord's suit for possession in the High Court, the tenant filed a written statement. Its defence was later struck out under S.17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for default in depositing rent.
Issue
Whether a tenant whose defence has been struck out can cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and take part in the trial.
Held
A provision like S.17(4) is in terrorem and must be construed strictly, limiting the defaulter's disabilities to the minimum consistent with justice. Cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses completes the plaintiff's case, since testimony not tested by cross-examination is not satisfactory. The defendant may cross-examine to point out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff's case, but not to present his own case. The appeal was allowed and the suit restored to the trial judge.
Principle
A defendant whose defence has been struck out may still cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to show the falsity or weakness of the plaintiff's case, but may not present his own case
Cite this

Facts

  • In a landlord's suit for possession in the High Court, the tenant filed a written statement. Its defence was later struck out under S.17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for default in depositing rent.

Issue

  1. Whether a tenant whose defence has been struck out can cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and take part in the trial.

Held

  • A provision like S.17(4) is in terrorem and must be construed strictly, limiting the defaulter's disabilities to the minimum consistent with justice. Cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses completes the plaintiff's case, since testimony not tested by cross-examination is not satisfactory. The defendant may cross-examine to point out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff's case, but not to present his own case. The appeal was allowed and the suit restored to the trial judge.

Ratio decidendi

Striking out a defence does not deprive the defendant of the right to test the plaintiff's evidence.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Cite on consequences of default in pleadings. Note: an earlier version of this file wrongly described this case as about evasive denial.

Cite this

Citation

Modula India v Kamakhya Singh Deo AIR 1989 SC 162; (1988) 4 SCC 619; 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 333

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1492054/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.