- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant whose defence has been struck of by order dated 29. 3. 89 which has been upheld by order dated 15. 2. 91.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the par ties. It has been held by the Supreme Court that even if the amounts are not deposited as required by Order XV Rule 5, C. P. C. , the trial Court is not bound to strike of the defence vide 1981 ARC 463 (SC) AIR 1987 SC 1011 and AIR 1985 SC 965 etc. In opinion since striking off the defence is a very serious step because it denies oppor tunity of hearing to the defendant it should be done very sparingly. Hence I set aside the orders dated 29. 3. 89 and 15-2-91 but I direct that the Suit No. 29 of 1985 be decided by the trial Court within six months of production of copy of this order. With these observation this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;