BASALINGAPPA CFFLNNAPPA GOUDAR Vs. SHANTAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the defendants in the Court below. Plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of her l/12th share in the suit schedule property. Petitioners are defendants 1 to 7 in the suit. Defendants 1 to 7 have not filed their written statement. Therefore, the case was posted for evidence and the plaintiff was examined as p. W. 1. She has marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 19, P. 20, P. 22 and P. 23 to 30, documents in support of her claim. After her examination-in-chief was over the aforesaid documents were marked, learned Counsel appearing for defendants 1 to 7 requested the Court to permit him to cross-examine P. W. 1. The said request was rejected by the Court below on the ground that defendants 1 to 7 have not filed written/statement. In view of the language-employed in Order 8, Rule 10 of the CPC especially the words in italics that, when the defendant fails to present the written statement called for by the Court, the Court shall pronounce the judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up, the Court was of the opinion that the defendants have no right to cross-examine the plaintiff. It is against the said order the present revision is filed.

(2.) RESPONDENTS are duly served and they have remained unrepresented.

(3.) THEREFORE, the only point that arises for my consideration is whether the defendant who has not filed the written statement has no right to cross-examine the plaintiff.