A defendant who has been proceeded against ex-parte and is allowed to join the proceedings is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address arguments, but cannot be permitted to adduce evidence in support of his case.

, J.

1. Where an order directing that the defendant be proceeded against ex-parte becomes final and the defendant subsequently appears and wants to join in the proceedings, can he be permitted to lead evidence and examine witnesses? Herein lies the controversy raised.

2. The defendant-Baru Ram, was proceeded against exparte and this order became final against him Later, when he appeared in court, the trial court not only permitted him to participate in (he proceedings, but also to lead evidence in support of his case. In doing so, it purported to follow the judgment in Radhamoni Padhiri V/s. Tanqudu Jaganatham and Anr. ,1, where it was held that the defendant-who had been proceeded against ex-parte and was allowed to join the proceedings was not only entitled to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff, but also to lead evidence in support of his case.

3. The view of the Supreme Court on this point is, however, to the contrary and must therefore, prevail In Modula India V/s. Kamakhya Singh, Deo,2, it was held that when the defence of a defendant is struck of, the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses and also to address arguments, but he cannot be permitted to adduce evidence in support of his case. In other words, his right was limited pointing out the falsity or weakness in the plaintiffs case by demonstrating that his witnesses were not speaking the truth or that the evidence led by the plaintiff was not sufficient to establish his case, but he cannot lead evidence on his own

4. Such thus being the settled position in law, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the trial court clearly fell in error in holding the defendant entitled to lead evidence to controvert that led by the plaintiffs. The impugned order of the trial court is consequently modified accordingly.

5. This revision petition is thus accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs.300/  Labh Ram vs. Gurdial Singh Sandhu and Anr. (15.03.1990 - PHHC) MANU/ph/0399/1990 Eq Cit: (1990)98plr29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Civil Revision No.3139 of 1989 Decided On: 15.03.1990 Appellants: Labh Ram Vs. Respondent: Gurdial Singh Sandhu and Anr. Honble Judges: J. V. Gupta, Acting C. J. Counsels: For Appellant/petitioner/plaintiff: M. L. Sarin, Sr. Adv. and Jaishree Thakur, Adv. For Respondents/defendant: A. S. Khaira, Adv. Subject: Tenancy Subject: Civil Acts/rules/orders: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13 and 15 (5); Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17; East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 Cases Referred: Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills V/s. Ladha Ram and Company, A. I. R 1977 S. C.680; Panchdeo Narain V/s. Joyti, A. I. R.1983 S. C.462 JUDGMENT J. V. Gupta, Acting C. J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated September 14, 1989, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement, filed on behalf of the petitioner (the alleged sub tenant) was dismissed.2. Gurdial Singh, landlord, filed an ejectment application on January 4, 1986, against his tenant Subhash Chand, and Labh Ram who was alleged to be the sub-tenant. No notice was issued to Labh Ram), but one B. L. Sharma, Advocate, appeared on his behalf and filed the written statement in which he admitted the allegations made in the ejectment application When the petitioner Labh Ram came to know that somebody on his behalf had filed the written statement, he moved an application for withdrawing the said written statement. However, the said application was dismissed on December 12, 1986. Later on the landlord moved the application that the statement of the petitioner Labh Ram be recorded which was done on August 3, 1987. Therein, he denied the allegations made in the ejectment application. He then moved the present application for amendment of the written statement which was contested on behalf of the landlord. According to the averments made in the application, i