In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that if a party's right to file a written statement is forfeited, they cannot indirectly present their case through evidence or written submissions. While such a party may still participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the complainant, they cannot introduce their case indirectly.
The present case relates to the consumer dispute, wherein pursuant to the Supreme Court's order the Respondent/defendant had forfeited his right to file a written statement, however, liberty was granted to him to decide whether to participate in the proceedings or not. According to Order 6 Rule 7 of the CPC, a defendant can only introduce claims consistent with previous pleadings. When previous pleadings are absent due to the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement, the defendant cannot introduce their case indirectly. Despite not presenting a formal case for cross-examination, the defendant proceeded to cross-examine witnesses and submit documentary evidence. The court observed that the defendant should not have been allowed to produce evidence without having first presented a formal case. Consequently, the defendant was restricted to arguing only the legal questions based on existing laws and authorities and addressing issues such as lapses, or non-admissibility of evidence introduced by the appellants.
The Court declined to intervene in the NCDRC's decision, which did not consider the defendant’s written statements, and affirmed that forfeiture of the right to file a written statement precludes indirect case presentation. The defendant can still participate and cross-examine witnesses.