IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2135 of 2006 ABDUL SALAM MANDAL @ ABDUS SALAM MANDAL S/o Ghulam Mustafa Mandal resident of mohalla Kanhauliganj Pakki Sarai, Chamra Godown Lane P.S. Town Muzaffarpur Dist. Muzaffarpur Petitioner Versus SANTOSH KUMAR NATHANI @ SANTOSH KUMAR S/o Late Mali Ram Nathani resident of mohalla Kanhauliganj Pakki Sarai, Chamra Godown Lane P.S. Town Muzaffarpur Dist. Muzaffarpur Opposite party --------- For the petitioner: Mr Sidheshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr Syed Iqbal Hasan, Advocate For the opposite party: Mr T.N. Maitin, Sr. Advocate Mr Ramadhar Singh, Advocate Mr Rajeeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---------- 3 19.08.2009 After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application to make a prayer before the court below allowing him to cross- examine the witnesses of the plaintiff in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Champa Lal Sharma vs. Smt Sumita Maitra reported in 1989 PLJR 381. It is stated that even if his defence -qua tenant stood struck off, so far the other defences like the absence of title in the plaintiff or the relationship of landlord and tenant, the opposite party can be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses . The relevant passage from aforesaid decision is quoted as hereunder: “In Sohan Lal vs Hodal Singh and others (A.I.R. 1979 Allahabad 230), Allahabad - 2 - High Court while considering the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in Uttar Pradesh held that in a case where the defence is struck off a defendant is not precluded from cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiff. In the said decision the Allahabad High Court relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Paradise Industrial Corporation vs Klin Plastic Products (A.I.R. 1976 SC 309). The insertion of last sentence in section 15 of the Act may also be viewed from that angle. It is, therefore, in my opinion, absolutely clear that in a case where the court directs the defence of the defendant to be struck off, the same would mean that his defences- qua tenant are stuck off and not his other defences like absence of title in the plaintiff or the relationship of landlord and tenant.” Learned counsel for opposite party raises no objection in withdrawal of this case in view of the above. Permission for withdrawal is accorded. This civil revision is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner makes a prayer as aforesaid for cross-examining the witnesses as per the law laid down, the court below shall consider and decide the matter in accordance with law. The court below is also directed to take every step for speedy disposal of the suit, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. shahid (Dr Ravi Ranjan, J)