N. M. KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision by the defendant is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Alwar dated July 28, 1988 upholding the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Alwar as well as the order passed by the trial court dated August 26, 1987. The order striking of the defence against eviction was passed on September 14, 1983 by the trial court. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on October 13, 1984 and thereafter, a revision No. 676/1984 was filed before this Court. The said revision was allowed in part by order dated February 11, 1987 and the order striking of defence against eviction was kept-intact so far as the ground for default in payment of rent is concerned. So far as other grounds of eviction are concerned, the defendant was permitted to lead his evidence. The defendant submitted an application on August 12,1987 with a prayer that he may be permitted to contest his right so far as default in payment of rent is concerned on account of the changed circumstances and some change in law on account of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bishan Das v. Savitri (l ). The application filed by the defendant was dismissed by the trial court by order dated August 26, 1987 and the appeal filed against this order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge.
(2.) IT was contended by Mr. Lodha that the earlier order was not resjudi-cate and in view of changed circumstances, the defendant was entitled to raise the plea that the defence against eviction was not liable to be struck out. I see no force in the contention of Mr. Lodha. So far as the question whether the defence against eviction is liable to be struck out or not became final between the parties by the trial court's order dated September 14, 1983 and its final culmination in the revision No. 676/1984 decided by the High Court by order dated February 11, 1987. Even if the Full Bench of this Court in Bishan Das Vs. Savitri, (supra) may have taken the view that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the question of bonafide good faith in not depositing the rent in time can be considered it cannot afford a ground to the defendant to raise this controversy again in the present, proceedings. The order of the High Court in civil Revision No. 676/1984 decided on February 11. 1987 is final in this regard so far as the parties in the present case are concerned. In view of these circumstances, I find no ground or justification to make any interference in the orders passed by the lower court. This revision thus having no force is, dismissed with no order as to costs. .;