ERUM TRAVELS Vs. KANWAR RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I would be deciding Civil Revision Petition No. 919 of 1997, which has been preferred against the order dated 26.8.1977, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the application for review of an earlier order dated 23.5.1997 for deposit of rent and requiring the entire arrears to be cleared by 28.8.1977, failing which the defence would be struck off.

(2.) This order would also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No-925 ofl997, against the order dated 28.8.1997, by which the defence of the petitioner was struck off on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent/damages and the evidence of the petitioner was closed.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders as being vitiated by material irregularity and illegal exercise of jurisdiction inasmuch as the order XXXIX, Rule 10, CPC, does not empower the Court to pass an order for striking out the defence. The petitioner further contends that since the specifically applicable provision i.e. Order XXXIX, Rule 10, CPC, did not provide for striking out the defence, resort could not be had to inherent powers under Section 151, CPC, to achieve the same.