The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the defendant to file a written submission would not foreclose its right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses to prove the falsity of the plaintiff’s case.
“Even if a defendant does not file a written statement and the suit is ordered to proceed ex parte against him, the limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed. A defendant can always cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff’s case.”, the court said.
It was a case where an ex-parte order was passed against the defendant due to the defendant’s failure to record its appearance. However, it was contended by the defendant that he was present in the court but was under the impression that the court would not hold due to the unavailability of the presiding officer.
After that, the defendant filed an application entailing the defences against the passing of an ex-parte order. The plaintiffs also applied to strike out the defendants’ defense. The plaintiff called the defendant’s claim of the presiding officer’s unavailability as misconceived.
The plaintiff’s application was heard by the court and decided against the defendant denying him the right to file a reply to the plaintiff’s application seeking the striking down of the defences urged by the defendant.
The Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih observed that an error was committed by the trial court while entertaining the plaintiff’s application seeking striking down of the defendant’s defence without affording an opportunity of hearing to the defendant.
The court said even if the defendant’s right to file a written statement stands extinguished, it would not foreclose the defendant’s right to lead evidence based on the plaint and the evidence led by the plaintiff.
In a nutshell, the court said that the defendant can cross-examine the plaintiff or its witnesses who deposed that defendant’s claim regarding the unavailability of the presiding officer was misconceived.
Case Title: RANJIT SINGH & ANR VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 737
Click here to read/download the order
Page Source : Live law
