- (1.) HON 'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that JSSC Suit No. 59 of 2007 was filed by plaintiff respondent no.1 for arrears of rent and ejectment from godown no.2 Eastern side situated near gate no.2 Anand Niketan Market, Bareilly against the petitioner. The defendant petitioner filed his written statement controverting the allegations made in the plaint. An application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff for striking off the defence against which no objection was filed by the defendant petitioner. The trial Court/Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly vide order dated 10.6.2010 allowed the application directing striking off the defence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.6.2010, the petitioner filed representation, which too was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 30.8.2010, against which revision was filed by the petitioner before the court of District Judge, Bareilly. The aforesaid revision was also rejected vide order dated 30.9.2010, hence the instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid orders dated 10.6.2010, 30.8.2010 and 20.10.2010 respectively.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed representation on sufficient and valid grounds and has also submitted the tender for depositing the entire amount of rent due as it provided under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. but the courts below have committed an error of jurisdiction in rejecting the representation of the petitioner as such the order striking off the defence of the petitioner is penal in nature. According to him, the courts below ought to have condoned the delay by recalling the order of striking off the defence and allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount due.;