Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Legal representatives of Gopal Singh original defendant since deceased have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 13.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby dismissing application of the petitioners for permitting them to lead evidence.

2. Respondent – plaintiff Gurdev Singh filed suit against Gopal Singh (predecessor of the petitioners) for specific performance of agreement to sell. The defendant failed to file written statement in spite of opportunities and accordingly his defence was struck off. The plaintiff led his evidence. Thereafter petitioners moved application that the defendant was aged about 100 years and generally remained ill and was illiterate and did not execute the alleged agreement or alleged writing nor received any amount nor signed or thumb marked the alleged agreement or writing in question. Accordingly, the petitioners sought permission to lead evidence.

3. The application was opposed by plaintiff alleging that defence of the defendant had been struck off and the said order has attained finality and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to lead evidence. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 13.10.2010 dismissed the application of the petitioners, who have, therefore, filed the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another, AIR 1955 S.C.425 contended that it is the discretion of the court in the facts and circumstances of each case to permit or not to permit the defendant to lead evidence. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh versus Baldev Singh and another, 1985 Revenue Law Reporter 287 and judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Suraj Pal vs. Mandir Mahadeoji and Ram Janki 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 491 laying down that the defendant, whose defence has been struck off due to non filing of written statement, still has right to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and also to lead evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s case. It was accordingly contended that petitioners have right to lead evidence to the limited extent of disproving the plaintiff’s case.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madula India vs. Kamakhya Singh Deo, 1988(2) RCR (Rent) 530, contended that defendant whose defence has been struck off has right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and to address arguments on the basis of plaintiff’s case but is not entitled to lead any evidence of his own. Counsel for the respondent also relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Babbar Sewing Machine Company vs. Trilok Nath Mahajan, 1978 PLJ 238.

8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. So far as judgment in the case of Sangram Singh (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case, in election petition, respondent did not appear before the Election Tribunal on the date fixed. On subsequent dates, he put in appearance through counsel and wanted to cross-examine the witnesses of the election petitioner but was disallowed by the Election Tribunal. In these circumstances, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the respondent elected candidate should have been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the election petitioner. This judgment does not relate to the factual position existing in the case in hand. Similarly, judgment in the case of M/s Babbar Sewing Machine Company (supra) cited by counsel for the respondent also has no applicability to the facts of the case in hand because the said judgment pertains to interpretation of Order 11