D/L- 37

25/08/2025

Ct. No.-6

Aritra C.O. 3026 of 2025

Seuli Saha & Anr.

Vs.

Smt. Sita Das & Ors. Mr. Tarak Nath Halder

…for the petitioners

Mr. Gautam Das

….for the opposite parties

This application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against orders dated July 3, 2025 and July 16, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court at Sealdah in Ejectment Suit No.105 of

2019.

By the order impugned the prayer of the petitioner

to adduce evidence according to their defence case stood

rejected.

Mr. Halder, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwal vs. Parbati

Chorone Roquitte, reported at 2025(2) ICC 640 (SC)

The learned advocate appearing for the opposite

party submits that the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck off under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be

permitted to travel beyond the very limited object of pointing out the falsity or weakness of the plaintiff’s case.

In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, reported at (1988) 4 SCC 619 He further refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the order dated April 11, 2022 passed in F.M.A. No.2025 of 2018 in the case of M/s. Hanuman Trading Co. vs. Kesto @ Kristo Mullick & Anr. as well as the order dated July 28, 2025 passed by this Court in C.O.2470 of 2025 in the case of Shambhu Nath Manna vs. Tapas Mitra & Anr.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed.

It is not in dispute that the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck off under the provisions of Section 7 (3) of the 1997 Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra) held that in a case where the defence against delivery of possession of a tenant is struck off, the defendant, subject to the exercise of an appropriate discretion by the Court on the facts of a particular case, would generally be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness; and to address argument on the basis of the plaintiff’s case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that the defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited object of pointing out the falsity or weakness of the plaintiff’s case and in no circumstances should the cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendant’s case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to the plaintiff’s witnesses.

The Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of M/s.

Hanuman Trading Co. (supra) after relying upon the decision in the case of Modula India (supra) held the right of giving any independent evidence by the defendants is circumscribed by the restriction mentioned in paragraph 24 of Modula India (supra), which clearly shows that the defendant would not entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited object of pointing out the falsity or weakness of the plaintiff’s case.

The aforesaid proposition of law laid down in Modula India (supra) was also relied upon by this Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Manna (supra).

In Pawan Kumar Agarwal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court after noting that the defence of the tenant has already been filed directed the same to be taken on record and directed the learned trial judge to proceed thereafter in accordance with law and to dispose of the ejectment suit as expeditiously as possible.

In Pawan Kumar Agarwal (supra) the Hon’bl Supreme Court did not observe that in a case where the defence of the petitioner has been struck out under Sectio