Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, though said to be under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, in fact, is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, vide which the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, restoring the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, which was dismissed in default on 8.11.2002. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 2.8.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was ordered to be dismissed.

2. At the time of hearing of this case, learned counsel for the petitioners withdrew his challenge to order dated 7.1.2008 i.e. the order restoring the suit to its original number.

3. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for rendition of accounts with with a consequential relief of recovery of arrears of rent on the pleadings, that the plaintiff/respondent was owner of one residential building bearing H. No. 432, Sector 16-A, Faridabad. The house in question was rented out to defendant No. 1Mrs. Rukhsana A. Rein on 1.2.1989, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) exclusive of water and electricity charges. The rent deed was executed between the parties on 30.2.1989.

4. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent, that defendant No. 1 never paid rent after May, 1989. Defendant No. 2 was impleaded as party being husband of defendant No. 1, who was a practicing lawyer in the Honble Supreme Court of India. It was also pleaded in the plaint, that at the behest of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 1 instead of paying the rent started harassing plaintiff/respondent on one pretext or the other. The case set up further was, that only Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) was paid to the plaintiff/respondent by defendant No. 1 i.e. rent from February, 1989 to April, 1989, at the time of taking possession of the house, and thereafter no rent was paid.

5. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent, that a suit for permanent injunction was filed against the plaintiff/respondent seeking injunction against illegal dispossession. The plaintiff/respondent thereafter filed an eviction petition against both the defendants, though defendant No. 2 was not his tenant. Two more petitions were also filed for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.

6. It was the pleaded case, that in spite of adjournment having been taken, the rent was not deposited by defendant No. 1 before the learned Rent Controller. Eviction order was, therefore, passed against the defendant/petitioners by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad on 6.6.1992.

7. The defendant/petitioners filed appeal against eviction order, which was also dismissed on 24.1.1994 by the appellate authority, Faridabad.

8. The plaintiff/respondent further pleaded, that defendants were directed to deposit rent with the learned Rent Controller by the appellate authority in the appeal, and certain amount was deposited, but details thereof were not disclosed to the plaintiff/respondent. The defendants had shown certain receipts of the amount deposited with the learned Rent Controller, but they were not taken on file formally. The order of appellate authority attained finality, and in pursuance thereto, possession of the house was taken on 10.5.1994.

9. It was claimed that no rent was paid from May, 1989 to 10.5.1994 @ Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month and interest @ 18% per annum on amount due was also claimed in the suit.

10. The suit for rendition of accounts was filed on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent was not able to get the details from the Court regarding the amount deposited by the defendant/petitioners. It was claimed that there was