Mulakh Raj vs Sewa Samiti (Regd.)

G.C. Garg, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.10.1993 passed by Sub Judge, First Class, Faridabad whereby the application moved by the plaintiff respondent under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was disposed of.

Plaintiff filed a suit in December, 1986, written statement was filed on 10.3.1987 and issues were framed on April 23, 1987. Plaintiff started leading his evidence on 3.9.1987 and ultimately concluded his evidence on March 20, 1992. It was thereafter on March 31, 1992 an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was filed seeking direction to the defendants to pay the arrears of rent and in the alternative to struck off the defence. This application was disposed of vide order dated 9.10.1993. Hence, this revision at the instance of the defendant.

The trial court vide impugned order came to the conclusion that in case the defence is struck off the defendants would be put to a great hardship in the absence of affording him an opportunity to take the payment of arrears of rent. The defendant was accordingly directed to deposit the entire arrears of rent upto date along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum within ten days and to continue depositing the rent every month regularly within a week of the date of its accrual, failing which the defence of the defendant shall stand struck off.

Learned counsel for the petitioner after referring to Jai Bhagwan v. Chandra Mohan and Ors. 1995 (111) P.L.R. 191 submitted that amendment in Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC relating to striking of the defence was brought about vide amendment made by this Court in May, 1991 and thus the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC as amended are not applicable to pending suits and this is precisely what has been held in Jai Bhagwan''s case (supra).

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the controversy raised in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Jai Bhagwan''s case supra).

In this view of the matter, this revision is allowed and the impugned order of the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is now directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law at an early date and preferably within a period of six months after affording not)more than three effective opportunities to the defendant for his evidence at short intervals. No costs.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court 7.12.1998.