Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anuj Mandhyan learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri K.N. Tripathi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohit Agrawal for the sole plaintiff respondent. Since all the parties are represented this revision is being decided today itself.
(2.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act filed by the defendant revisionist whereby the order dated 24.05.2013 passed in SCC Suit No. 48 of 2011 by the District Judge, Agra has been assailed. By the impugned order the defence of the defendant revisionists has been struck off under Order 15, Rule 5 CPC.
(3.) Sri Mandhyan has argued at length on two questions, the first is that the rent was not admitted and therefore the impugned order could not at the stage of considering an application under Order 15, Rule 5 CPC determine the amount of rent and then hold that default has been committed. The second is that there was no intentional default in deposit of monthly rent and hence the defence of the defendant revisionists could not have been struck off by the impugned order.;