Limited Scope of Defense After Striking Off: Cross-Examination Rights in Civil Proceedings

In the case of Smt. Shukla Malhotra & Ors. vs M/S Dee Pee Kagajudyog Pvt. Ltd. (10 August 2001), the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice J.D. Kapoor, addressed the issue of a defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses after their defense has been struck off. The court examined the extent to which a defendant can participate in the proceedings following such a sanction.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This section allows for the striking off of a tenant's defense if they fail to comply with a court order to deposit rent. The court noted that a similar provision applied in this case, even though it involved a broader civil context.

Key Points:

Limited Right to Cross-Examine: Even after the defense is struck off, the defendant retains a limited right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. However, this right is confined to pointing out the falsity or weakness in the plaintiff's case. The defendant is not allowed to use cross-examination as a means to introduce or suggest their own defense indirectly.

Supreme Court Precedent: The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo, which established that a defendant whose defense is struck off cannot lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses beyond the limited scope of challenging the plaintiff's evidence.

Prohibition on Re-introducing Defense: The judgment emphasized that allowing a defendant to cross-examine beyond this limited scope would effectively nullify the order striking off the defense, making such orders meaningless.

Court’s Conclusion: The court allowed the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses only to the extent of pointing out legal deficiencies or patent falsehoods in the plaintiff’s case, without reintroducing the defendant’s case.

This judgment reinforces the principle that striking off a defense in civil proceedings is a serious penalty that significantly limits the defendant's ability to participate in the case, preserving the integrity of the court's order while ensuring that the plaintiff's case is scrutinized for its validity.