V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The defendants in a suit for recovery from them of certain amount claimed as arrears of rent for the period between December 1, 1969 and Aug. 31, 1971 in respect of a demised premises together with pendente lite and future interest have filed the present application in revision under S 115 of the Civil P. C.
(2.) The suit for the purpose aforesaid was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party and came up for trial before tHe II Addl. District Judge, Meerut exercising the powers of a Judge, Small Causes. The plaintiff-opposite party filed an application (59-C) with the prayer that the defence of the present applicants may be struck off, inasmuch as, they had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XV, C.P.C. That rule was introduced in O. XV, C.P.C. by U. P. Civil Law Amendment Act, 1972 (U. P. Act 37 of 1972) which was enforced with . effect from Sept. 20, 1972. The applicant resisted the application aforesaid of the plaintiff, infer alia, on the ground that in a suit for recovery of arrears alone, the provisions of that rule were not applicable. However, the trial Judge was of opinion that even in such a suit, the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XV, C.P.C. were applicable and that, inasmuch as, the defendants had admittedly failed to comply with it, their defence deserved to be struck off. Consequently, by an order dated April 12, 1975, the learned trial Judge struck off the applicants defence and directed the suit to proceed ex parte against them. Aggrieved, the applicants have come up to this court in the present application in revision.
(3.) Having heard Sri Jagdish Prasad, for the applicants and Sri Vishnu Sahai for the plaintiff-opposite party at some length, I am of opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is plainly untenable and that the striking out of the defence of the applicants by him and the direction for proceeding with the trial of the suit ex parte are wholly without jurisdiction.;