Advocates:
AJAY NATH RAY, B.P.SINGH, INDIRA SAWHNEY, RANJAN DEB GANGADEB, S.K.KAPOOR, SURENDRA DUBE

Key Points: - The judgment discusses that defence being struck out does not automatically deprive the tenant of all participation; cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses may still be permissible under certain conditions (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It affirms that the defendant whose defence is struck out can be allowed to cross-examine plaintiff witnesses and address arguments on the plaintiff’s case, but cannot lead any of his own evidence or present his own case beyond testing the plaintiff’s evidence (!) (!) (!) . - The court emphasizes that striking out of defence is a measure of restraint and should be exercised with great caution, ensuring it does not prejudice the plaintiff and that the defendant’s limited participation is suitably regulated to avoid turning cross-examination into presenting a defence (!) (!) (!) . - It acknowledges that the issue involves a conflict of hi​storical precedents from Calcutta High Court and looks to Sangram Singh, Paradise Industrial, and Babbar Sewing Machine decisions for guiding principles on ex parte/defence participation and cross-examination rights (!) (!) (!) . - The decision ultimately restores the suit for trial with the clarified position that the defendant may cross-examine and argue, but not lead evidence; the appeal is allowed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with these principles (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses the procedural framework and references to Rule 21 of Order XI CPC and related statutory provisions clarifying cross-examination rights even when the defence is struck out (!) (!) (!) .

What is the effect and scope of a defence being struck out under Section 17(3)/(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on a tenant's right to cross-examine plaintiff witnesses and to participate in the case?

What rights remain for a defendant whose defence has been struck out, specifically regarding cross-examination, addressing arguments, and introducing defence-related evidence?

What is the appropriate judicial approach or discretion of the court in handling a case where the defence is struck out, balancing the rights of the plaintiff and the remaining rights of the defendant?