Honble KOKJE, J.–These are petitions for revision of Order dated 21.1.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Udaipur South, Udaipur. (2). The petitioner-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court refusing to debar the defendant from cross- examining the plaintiffs witnesses on the ground that the defendant had no filed any written statement. (3). According to the petitioner after giving several opportunities to file written statement, the trial Court closed the right of the defendant to file written statement on 17.11.1994. The suit lingered on thereafter as parties sought time for compromise which did not materialise. Ultimately, the plaintiffs evidence was started. After examination-in-chief of the witness of the plaintiff the Defendants counsel wanted to cross-examine him which the plaintiff objected to and filed an application on 10.5.1996 for the purpose. The objection was that as no written statement was filed by the Defendant, the Defendant had no defence in this case and therefore had no right to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses. The application was dismissed by the trial Court and against that order of the trial Court, this revision petition has been filed. (4). When a written statement is not filed, the consequence provided in O.8, R. 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code hereinafter), may follow, under that provision where the defendant has not filed the pleading, it is lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint. But the Court has been given a discretion to require any such facts to be proved. (5). Obviously, in this case, the trial Court has exercised discretion not to pro- nounce judgment under the aforesaid provision. It has therefore set the case for evidence requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts alleged by him. It is not also a case u/O. 8, R.10 of the Code where a Defendant fails to file written statement even after the Court specifically requires him to do so. Under this provision also, the Court has either to pronounce judgment or to make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. Obviously, the case does not fall u/R.10 of the Code and the Court hass not pronounced judgment under that Rule. (6). Under this provision also, the Court has either to pronounce judgment or to make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. Obviously, the case does not fall u/R.10 of the Code and the Court hass not pronounced judgment under that Rule. (6). The question then only would be as to what would be the consequences of not filing written statement on the defendants right to defend. Whether he can cross-examine the witnesses produced by the plaintiff ? Whether he can examine his own witnesses? Whether he can advance arguments against the plaintiffs case? (7). In Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo (1), the Supreme Court while examining position of the defendant whose defence has been struck out has referred to the provisions of the Code and has laid down that in such a case the defendant can be allowed to take part in the proceedings and to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses but he cannot lead evidence and examine witnesses in support of his case. His right was limited in pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiffs case by demonstrating that plaintiffs witnesses are not speaking the truth. The following excerpts from Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision makes the position clear:– ``We, therefore, think that the defendant should be allowed his right of cross-examination and arguments. But we are equally clear that this right should be subject to certain important safeguard. The first of these is that the defendant cannot be allowed to lead his own evidence. None of the observations or decisions cited have gone to the extent of suggesting that, in spite of the fact that the defence has been struck off, the defendant can adduce evidence of his own or try to substantiate his own case. Secondly, there is force in the apprehension that if one permits cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses by the defendant whose defence is struck off, procedural chaos may result unless great care is exercised and that it may be very difficult to keep the cross-examination within the limits of the principles discussed earlier. Under the guise of cross- examination and purported demolition of the plaintiffs case, the defendant may attempt to put forward pleas of his ow. Under the guise of cross- examination and purported demolition of the plaintiffs case, the defendant may attempt to put forward pleas of his ow. To perceive quickly the difference between questions put out to elicit a reply from the plaintiff which may derogate from his own case and questions put out to substantiate pleas in defence which the defendant may have in m ind and to restrict the cross-examination to its limits will be not easy task. We think, however, that this is a difficulty of procedure, rather than substance. As pointed out by Ramendra Mohan Dutta, J. this is a matter to be sorted out in practical application rather than by laying down a hard and fast rule of exclusion. A third safeguard which we would like to impose is based on the obser vations of this Court in Sangram Singhs case (2). As pointed out therein, the essence of the matter in all such cases is that the latitude that may be extended by the Court to the defendant in spite of his not having filed a written statement, should not cause prejudice to the plaintiff. Where the defendant does not file a written statement or where he does not appear to contest the case the plaintiff proceeds on the basis that there is no real opposition and contents himself by letting in just enough evidence to establish a prima facie case. Therefore, the Court should ensure that by permitting the defendant at a later stage either to cross-examine the witnesses or to participate in the proceedings the plaintiff is not taken by surprise or gravely prejudiced. The difficulty however can be easily overcome in practice, because there is a wide discretion with the Court and it is always open to the Court, where it believes that the plaintiff, has been misled, to exercise its discretion to shut out cross-examination or to regulate it in such manner as to avoid any real prejudice to the interests of the plaintiff. (8). In the present case if the trial Court has permitted the defendant to cross- examine the plaintiffs witnesses, it cannot be said that it had committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. The trial Court shall keep the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in view while dealing with the case before it. (9). The trial Court shall keep the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in view while dealing with the case before it. (9). The revision petition is dismissed without notice to the other side.