J.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) THE petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the Judge S.C.C. dated 7th January, 1981 striking off the defence under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. for delayed deposit of rent and also the order passed in revision by the IVth Addl. District Judge, Allahabad on 18th November, 1981 dismissing the revision. From the impugned order passed by the Judge (S.C.C.) it transpires that the rent was deposited for the period from 1.9.1973 to 31.1.1974 on 25.1.1974, for the period from 1.2.1974 to 31.11.1974 on 27.8.1975 and for the period from 1.12.1974 to 31.8.1977 on 18.8.1977.
(2.) FROM the impugned order it appears that there was delay in depositing the rent though the petitioner had filed rent receipts of all the months and on the date of order the defendant was not in arrears of the rent. The representation filed by the petitioner was also rejected as it was not filed within 10 days.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the purpose of the Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. is not to punish the landlord but to ensure the regular payment of rent during the period of litigation. The Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal : 1981 (7) ALR 556, has held that provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. are discretionary and the court has power not to strike off the defence even in the absence of representation by tenant if on facts and circumstances already existing on record it finds good reason for not striking off the defence. In Chaman Lal Sharma v. 1st Additional District Judge and others, 1991 (18) ALR 56, it was held that for the lapses on the part of the counsel the litigant should not be punished. In Laxmi Narain v. Ramanand and others, 1994 (24) ALR 244, it was held that delay in deposit which occurred on account of lack of suitable ventures from the counsel would not justify the striking off the defence.;