This civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 19.3.2008, made in I.A. No.25 of 2008 in I.A. No.1327 of 2006 in O.S. No.1 of 2006 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. It is no doubt stated that yet another application, being I.A. No.224 of 2008, was filed to condone the delay, and both the applications, I.A. Nos.224 and 225 of 2008 in I.A. No.1327 of 2006 in O.S. No.1 of 2006, had been disposed of by a common order, dated 19.3.2008, and it is stated there is connected CRP No.2152 of 2008, pending at the stage of admission. It is needless to say that the result of the said CRP would also depend on the order to be made in the present CRP.

3. Sri Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents, would maintain that inasmuch as the revision petitioner is in huge arrears and in view of the interim stay granted by this Court, the respondents-plaintiffs are put to serious loss, there is grave urgency and hence, this CRP to be disposed of.

4. However, Ms. Manjiri S. Ganu, the learned, Counsel representing the revision petitioner, submitted that inasmuch as both the CRPs., arise out of a common order, it would be just and convenient to dispose of both the CRPs., together.

5. It is needless to say that this C.R.P., had already been admitted and this matter is coming up for hearing before this Court and the other C.R.P., is at the stage of admission. Be that as it may, in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel on record, this Court had taken up the final hearing of this CRP and heard the learned Counsel at length.

6. Ms. Manjiri S. Ganu, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner, had taken this Court through the relevant clauses of the lease deed, dated 27.12.2004, and would maintain that whether the default committed would fall within the meaning of unreasonable or reasonable period may have to be decided at the appropriate stage. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would maintain that striking off defence being an extreme step, normally not to be resorted to and the revision petitioner is prepared to comply with the condition of making deposit, if reasonable time is granted even at this stage. Further, the learned Counsel would maintain that inasmuch as still the evidence on plaintiffs' side is in progress, even if an opportunity is given to the revision petitioner permitting him to make the deposit and contest the matter, despite the fact that the order made in I.A. No.1327 of 2006 had not been questioned, no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents-plaintiff. Further, the learned Counsel, while elaborating her submissions, would maintain that the second respondent who is said to be the purchaser came on record subsequent thereto and in fact, the first respondent had no locus to maintain the applications and this aspect also may have to be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel also would maintain that this is a matter concerned with an educational institution and in the event of the order of striking off the defence of the revision petitioner-defendant to be confirmed, the students also would be put to serious suffering. The learned Counsel, in all thoroughness, had taken this Court through the series of events and also the facts in detail.

7. Sri Suryanarayana, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents-plaintiffs, had taken this Court through the Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (A.P. Amendment) and would maintain that in the light of the language employed in the said order, the striking off defence on default in compliance of the order to be construed as mandatory. The learned Senior Counsel also would maintain that here is a case where the revision petitioner even as on this day had not chosen to challenge the order made in I.A. No.1327 of 2006. The learned Senior Counsel also placed the orders made by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,