Strict implementation of court directions barred reopening defence evidence and limited cross-examination to plaintiff's documents only.

SC directions restricting the defendant's defence had to be implemented strictly, and the trial court could not use inherent powers to bypass that prohibition after the defendant failed to pay arrears. Reopening cross-examination and allowing the defendant to prove and exhibit defence documents would have indirectly permitted what had been expressly barred. The operative effect was confined to permitting the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff on the plaintiff's documents, while excluding any enlargement of the defendant's curtailed defence rights.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court could reopen cross-examination and allow the defendant to prove and exhibit documents after the Supreme Court had directed that, on non-payment of occupation charges, the evidence filed in the case would be struck off and the matter would proceed without the defendant's defence.

Analysis: The earlier direction of the Supreme Court was required to be implemented in letter and spirit. Once the respondent failed to pay the arrears, the trial court could not use its inherent powers to indirectly permit what had been expressly prohibited. Reopening cross-examination and allowing reliance on defence documents exceeded the permissible scope of the earlier order, because the defendant's right to defend had been curtailed by the Supreme Court's directions.

Conclusion: The trial court's orders were modified, and the respondent-defendant was permitted only to cross-examine the plaintiff with respect to the plaintiff's documents.

---