JUDGMENT AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—This appeal is by the defendant. The defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in respect of a smaller site in the larger property. 2. During the course of the judgment, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. She claims that she purchased the same from one Smt. Sashikala Wife of Ramachandran pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 18.9.1999. The said property was coming under the jurisdiction of HAL Sanitary Board. The said Board assessed the property and collected the taxes. The plaintiff is regular in paying the said taxes and the Khata has also been changed in her name pertaining to the suit schedule property. Thus, according to her she is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. 4. The plaintiff would contend that though the defendants have no right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property trespassed into the suit schedule property and started interfering on 24.7.2000. In these circumstances, the present suit is filed for bare injunction. 5. The defendants were served with the suit summons appeared through their Advocate, but however, did not choose to file their written statement notwithstanding time granted by the learned Trial Judge. 6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. 7. After the conclusion of the evidence of plaintiff’s side opportunity was given to the defendants to put forth their defence, if any, but however, they did not choose to avail the said opportunity. The learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 8. I have heard Mr. Aniyan Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the defendants as well as Mr. Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. 9. Mr. The learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 8. I have heard Mr. Aniyan Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the defendants as well as Mr. Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. 9. Mr. Aniyan Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that an opportunity may be given to the defendants to file their written statement and contest the proceedings inasmuch as it is a public property and the suit schedule property along with vast extent of land was acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification dated 22.1.1987 and the award is passed in the year 1991 and possession is also handed over on 26.7.1993. 10. Mr. Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that sufficient time was granted to the defendants to file their written statement so also to lead evidence, if any. But however, that has not been done. He submits that the defendants having not availed the opportunity provided cannot complain now that the matter is to be remitted for fresh disposal. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 12. Indeed, the observation made by the learned Trial Judge appears to be right inasmuch as sufficient time was granted. But however, the defendants did not avail the said opportunity. But however, what is significant to note is that when the matter was set down for evidence on 14.11.2002, the plaintiff has filed her evidence by way of an affidavit and on the same day the matter was set down for cross-examination. The learned Trial Judge has made a note ‘defendant and their Advocate absent, hence, plaintiff cannot be cross-examined’ and thereafter the matter is set down for arguments and the suit has been decreed. 13. Apparently, it is to be noticed that even though the defendants have not filed their written statement the law permits the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and their witnesses. Indeed, the defendant is required to cross-examine the plaintiff on the evidence adduced and the pleadings. But however, cannot suggest his defence in the cross-examination. 13. Apparently, it is to be noticed that even though the defendants have not filed their written statement the law permits the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and their witnesses. Indeed, the defendant is required to cross-examine the plaintiff on the evidence adduced and the pleadings. But however, cannot suggest his defence in the cross-examination. If any decision is required one can refer to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, reported in AIR 1989 SC 162 , wherein the Apex Court has observed thus: “………. However, when the defendant is afforded the aforesaid right he would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff’s case. In no circumstances should the cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond this legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendant’s case either directly or in the form of suggestions pout to the plaintiff’s witnesses.” 14. The said ruling is followed by a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mallayya vs. Totayya, reported in ILR 1989 KAR 807. This Court was of the view that the matter requires remittance and if the defendant desires to cross-examine that witness, he shall be permitted to do so in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as Division Bench of this Court I am inclined to allow the matter and remit the appeal to the learned Trial Judge. In fitness of things if the defendants are permitted to file their written statement that would certainly meet the ends of justice inasmuch as the defendants can safeguard the property if at all it is acquired as contended by them. 15. Indeed, it is noticed that the suit was instituted in the year 2001 and the plaintiff being dragged to this Court and back once again to the Trial Court, I am of the view that they are entitled for costs. Hence, the following order: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is set aside and the matter stands remitted to the learned Trial Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Hence, the following order: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is set aside and the matter stands remitted to the learned Trial Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (iii) Both the plaintiff and the defendants shall appear before the 16th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City on 31.10.2012. (iv) The plaintiff is entitled for costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. (v) The said costs shall be paid within two weeks from the date of appearance before the Trial Court. (vi) On payment of such costs, the defendants shall file their written statement within four weeks from the date of payment of costs. (vii) The learned Trial Judge to conclude the proceedings itself within a period of three months thereafter. (viii) Registry to send back the records forthwith.