JAIHIND VIDYALAYA Vs. GHANSHYAM GIRDHARILAL KHINCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court on 16-12-1986 directing the defendants 1 and 2 to deposit Rs. 31,6000/- (arrears of rent for 35 months) by 15-1-1987 and further order passed by the said Court on 15-1-1987 striking out the defence of the defendants are challenged in this revision. Both these orders came to be passed in Civil Suit No. 1205/1985 pending before the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur.

(2.) The plaintiff (present respondents 1 and 2) instituted a suit for arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit an application came to be filed under Order XV-A sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and on hearing the parties the Court directed the defendants to deposit Rs. 31,500/- within a month i.e. by 15-1-1987. On 15-1-1987 the defendants filed an application for adjournment on the ground that they were thinking of going in revision against the order passed by the trial Court. This application came to be opposed. On hearing the parties the Court passed an order below Ex. 38 rejecting the application for adjournment and further directing the defence to be struck off.

(3.) Shri Moharil, the learned Advocate for the petitioner (defendant No. 2) strenuously urged before me that the trial Court was wrong in passing the Order under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedures It was his contention that it is only in the suit for eviction and arrears of rent and mesne profit that the order of depositing the rent could be passed. Conversely it was his contention that if the suit is not for eviction but only for arrears of rent such order could never be passed. He invited my attention to 1st sub-rule of Order XV-A and wanted to read the word "or" conjunctively and not disjunctively. Before proceeding with the argument of Shri Moharil, it will be proper to reproduce sub-rules (1) and (2) of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it would help in appreciating the real controversy. It reads as follows :