A court has the discretion to strike out the defence of a defendant who fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories or make discovery of documents, and such an order is not appealable.

( 1 ) THESE two civil revisions by the defendant arise out of two different orders passed in the same suit. The suit was instituted by Chhannoo Lal, the plaintiff-opposite-party, for recovery of certain sum as salary. Under the provisions of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendant, on an application by the plaintiff dated the 22nd of August, 1953, was called upon to answer certain interrogatories and to make discovery of certain papers. Twelve days time was initially granted to comply with the order. On the 5th of September, 1953, time was extended by twenty days on defendants application, which was again extended on 23rd September, 1953, by three weeks. The defendant still failed to comply with the order, with the result that the court suo motu granted further time and it finally passed an order on plaintiffs application No. 63-C dated 31st october, 1953, to the following ef feet:

"defendant has not filed either answer or objection. The defence of the defendant is struck o (f. Suit be heard ex paite on the date fixed".

This order was passed without notice to the defendant on 31st October, 1953, under the provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. That rule says that where any party fails to comply with any Order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of document, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and if a defendant to have his defence if any, struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery, or inspection may apply to the court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made accordingly. The rule nowhere requires that notice of the application is to be given to the opposite side.

( 2 ) ON. 14-11-1953 the defendant made an application in review before the trial court praying for the setting aside of the order of the 31st of October, 1953, and an affidavit was filed to the effect thai on 28th September, 1953, a functionary of the defendant company had left for Bombay on an urgent work and that was the reason why the order had not been complied with. The Munsif dismissed the application in review on 19th December, 1953, holding that the application and the affidavit did not disclose what kind of urgency made the defendant company forget that the reply to the interrogatories had to be Sled within three weeks of 23rd of September, 1953. more especially in a case where the time was extended suo motu by the court and yet the defendant did not choose to find out what was happening in the case.

( 3 ) ON the 23rd of December, 1953, the defen-dant filed an appeal against the order dated 31st october, 1953, under the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule 1 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure; and along with the memorandum of appeal he filed an application before the appellate judge under Section 14 of the Limitation Act praying that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. On that application the following order was passed:-

" the order appealed against was passed on 31st October, 1953, but its copy was applied for on 21st of December, 1953, long after the period of appeal, Appellant was duly represented by counsel so that it makes no difference whether appellant belongs to Banaras or Kanpur. Hence the delay cannot be condoned. Appeal rejected as time barred. "

This order was passed on the 13th of February, 1954 Civil Revision No. 350 of 1954 is directed against the order of the District Judge passed on 13th February, 1954, and Civil Revision No. 351 of 1954 is directed against the order of the Munsif passed on 19th December, 1953.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the applicant I am of opinion that no case has been made out to revise the orders in question. The defendant was obviously a contumacious party and in spite of enough time having been granted, he did not comply with the order of answering interrogatories and of making discovery of do