Virender Singh, Judge

Petitioner Gopal Dass, by way of present petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, has assailed the orders dated 2.1.2020 and 24.2.2022, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Court No. 4), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 1504 of 2019, titled as, ‘Rajput Sthaniya Sabha versus Gopal Dass’.

2. By way of order dated 2.1.2020, the learned trial Court has struck off the defence of the defendant, as he could not file written statement, nor deposited the costs, as per order dated 4.12.2019. Vide order dated 24.2.2022, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, filed by the defendant, under Order 6 Rule 15(2), read with Section 151 CPC.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

4. Brief facts, leading to filing the present Revision petition, before this Court, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, are that plaintiff Rajput Sthaniya Sabha, Shimla has filed the suit for recovery of possession of two room set with kitchen, toilet & lobby at Skipton Villa, near Ritz Theater, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit premises’), and for recovery of use and occupation charges, against the defendant. The said suit has been filed on the ground that the area known as ‘Skipton Villa’, comprised in khata/khatauni No. 228/334, khasra Nos. 507 to 524, 526 and 531 to 533, kita 22, measuring 887-02 sq. meter, is a built up area.

5. According to the plaintiff, one Sharu Ram was Chowkidar with the plaintiff-society and the suit premises was given to him, for residential purpose. After the death of Sharu Ram, his son, Gopal Dass (plaintiff) continued to occupy the premises, despite requests made by the plaintiff-society to vacate the same. When, the premises were not vacated, despite oral requests, then, legal notice dated 24.1.2018 was issued to the defendant, but, the same has not been replied, nor complied with.

6. On the basis of above facts, relief, as claimed in the suit, has been sought.

7. Defendant, in the suit, put appearance and sought time to file written statement. Ultimately, he has moved application under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the CPC. Prior to that, he has taken three effective opportunities, as he has put appearance, before the learned trial Court on 25.2.2019. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 4.12.2019, by permitting the defendant to file written statement, on 2.1.2020, subject to costs of Rs. 1000/-.

8. Aggrieved from the aforesaid orders, the present Revision petition has been filed.

9. The orders, passed by the learned trial Court, as referred to above, have been challenged by the defendant on the ground that on 4.12.2019, his application for extension of time to file written statement has been allowed, and the matter was adjourned for 2.1.2020. On that date, the defendant moved the application under Order 6 Rule 15(2), read with Section 151 of the CPC, with a prayer to direct the plaintiff to supply necessary particulars. On the said date, the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff to file reply to the said application, however, according to the defendant, his counsel remained under the impression that reply has been called to the application under Order 6 Rule 15(2), read with Section 151 of the CPC, and after disposal of the application, he will be allowed to file the written statement.

10. Order dated 2.1.2020 has been assailed on the ground that the learned trial Court has erred in law by not appreciating the fact that application under Order 6 Rule 15 (2) CPC is pending, as such, there is no occasion for the learned trial Court to strike off the defence of the defendant.

11. Highlighting the fact that the application under Order 6 Rule 15(2) read with Section 151 CPC remained pending, till 24.2.2