B.N. Sapru, J. - (1.) One of the questions involved in this revision is as to whether the defence of a tenant can be struck down for non-compliance with Rule 5 of Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the C.P.C.) as added to the C.P.C. by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act 57 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976'.
(2.) In the case of Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh and others, 1979(5) ALR 56 : 1979 ARC 105 (FB) , it has been held that the defence of a tenant can be struck down for such a non-compliance.
(3.) Mr. Justice M.N. Shukla, in the Full Bench judgment has observed that there is no direct conflict between the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C., as inserted by the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act No. 104 of 1976), hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Central Act No. 104 of 1976'. I am quoting the relevant part of the judgment of Mr. Justice Shukla, which runs as follows:- "In my opinion none of the above tests is fulfilled in the present case. There is surely no direct conflict between the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, as inserted by U.P. Act 37 of 1972 and the Central Act which does not contain Rule 5. Order VI, Rule 16 substituted by Central Act No. 184 of 1976 also contains a provision for striking out pleadings, Rule 5 of Order XV merely adds other cases in which the same power may be exercised. It, therefore, multiplies the situations for the exercise of that power and does not make any innovation which may be regarded as inconsistent with the Central Act. I am also inclined to agree with K.C. Agrawal, J. who after quoting extensively from the reports of the law commission came to the conclusion that the object of enacting Central Act No. 104 of 1976 was not to provide a exhaustive Code but it was a limited object namely, to "consider what amendments are needed to avoid delay and minimise cost in civil proceedings." In other words, the Union Parliament did not intend this legislation to be complete and exhaustive Code relating to the subject.";