revisionist so as to contend that the defendant cannot be deprived of his right to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses even though he has not been given leave to defend, would not apply in the case of a summary suit, up to the stage of hearing the summons for judgment, having regard to the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code. However, once leave to defend is granted, either unconditionally or conditionally and the condition is fulfilled, the plaintiff would lose his right to have a judgment forthwith, as contemplated by the summons for judgment, and, in that event, the suit would proceed as per the general provisions of the Code in view of Rule 7 of Order XXXVII of the Code; and, in such an event, the defendant would have right to cross examine the plaintiff's witness, if examined, even if the suit proceeds ex parte or without a defense as in an ordinary suit. But where the leave to defend is either rejected or granted conditionally and the condition is not fulfilled, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment forthwith and in such a situation, he can obtain a decree forthwith as contemplated under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(6) of the Code or it could be based on the affidavit evidence on the side of the plaintiff and the documents produced or even based on oral evidence formally proving the same as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Bansal (supra) . The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist are in the context of ordinary suits where no leave to defend is required and, therefore, in an ordinary suit, even where the suit proceeds ex parte or the defense is struck off, the defendant is not precluded from cross examining plaintiff's witness, whereas in a summary suit there is no inherent right to defend without the leave of the Court or the Judge. Accordingly, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist are not of much help to the revisionist .”
