Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;-

Heard Sri Rishi Chadha, learned counsel for the revisionists at length.

2. Sri Chadha submits that striking out of the defence of the revisionists is not in conformity with Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), inasmuch as, the revisionists were not required to deposit the rent keeping in view the defence having been set up by the revisionists. He has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 3 of the affidavit disclosing the family pedigree to contend that the revisionists are the coparceners of the property in dispute and in this view of the matter, the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC are not attracted. He further contends that the property was purchased out of the joint nucleus family funds and this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the court below, which has summarily dealt with the issue, hence, the impugned order is vitiated.

3. Sri Chadha further contends that the order is cryptic and it does not proceed to consider the claim on merits in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Sunder Singh Vs. Vivek Sah reported in 1986 (1) ARC 153, paragraph 16. He has f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document