SMT. MAMTA SHUKLA Vs. V.K. SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal against an order of the Additional Judge Family Court, Lucknow in Case No. 174 of 1981, striking off the defence of the appellant. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) THE point involved is short. It appears that on 25 -11 -1991, the present appellant moved an application through her Pairokar for adjournment of the case till second week of December on the grounds that she was unable to attend the court on that date and that she wanted to get the proceedings stayed by filing some petition in the High Court. The respondent, who was the petitioner in Suit No. 174 of 1981, appears to have strongly opposed the prayer. Ultimately, the court rejected the application for; adjournment and passed an order striking off the defence of the appellant and thereafter it fixed 27 -11 -91 for final hearing.

(3.) IT is submitted that under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no provision, providing for striking of the defence except under Order XV Rule 5 which had been added by the U.P. Amendment, but Rule 5 provides for striking of the defence in cases where a party fails to deposit the admitted rent of the accommodation in dispute. We find that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that Order XV Rule 5 would not be applicable to the present case. No other provision under the C.P.C., has been indicated providing for striking off defence.