R GANGA REDDY Vs. RAGHUNATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nizambad, in I. A. No. 573 of 1976 in O. S. No. 24 of 1974 on the file of his Court. The petitioner is the defendant whose defence in the suit was ordered to be struck off.

(2.) The respondent instituted the suit against the petitioner for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one share claiming to be the adopted son of the petitioner. Along with the suit, he filed I. A. No. 175 of 1974 for appointment of a receiver to take possession and to manage the lands of the joint family. The petitioner opposed the application. The Court refused to appoint a receiver, but directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,900.00 per annum before the end of March every year commencing from March, 1975. The petitioner filed C. M. A. No. 627 of 1974 in this Court stating that the income of the lands, as estimated by the Court, was highly excessive. The High Court allowed the appeal by reducing the deposit amount of Rs. 18,900.00 per annum to Rs. 12,000.00 per annum. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner deposited Rs. 8,000.00 and later on he deposited two sums of Rs. 4,000.00 and Rs. 2,000.00. He did not however deposit any amount subsequently, though he had to deposit totally Rs. 48,000.00 for the years 1975 to 1978. He filed I. A. No. 195 of 1976 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge requesting that the order directing deposit of Rs. 12,000.00 may be modified so as to reduce the amount; but the Court dismissed the application. As the petitioner was not depositing any amounts, the respondent filed I. A. No. 573 of 1976 for appointment of a receiver, the petitioner opposed the application. The Court finally passed the impugned order dated 20-9-1976 and it reads :

(3.) The petitioner is the defendant in a suit for partition. He is in possession of the suit lands. When the plaintiff sought the appointment of a receiver, he opposed the application. To safeguard the interests of the plaintiff, the High Court directed him to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,000.00 every year. He is not depositing the amount even though several years have passed. The trial Court directed that his defence should be "struck out" if he does not comply with the order of the High Court by a particular date. The question is, whether, under these circumstances, the Court has jurisdiction to strike out the defence in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151, C. P. C.