Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.—

1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist and perused the records.

2. None for the respondents in spite of personal service.

3. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Raibareli, by which application of the landlord/revisionist for striking of the defence of the defendant due to non-compliance by the tenant, under Order 15 Rule 5 of C.P.C. has been rejected. The learned Judge S.C.C. has observed in last but one para that the defendant has defaulted in complying with the provisions contained in Order 15 Rule 5 of C.P.C. but has held that whether this default is bonafide or malafide, can be considered only after recording of evidence. The findings are patently absurd. The provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 of C.P.C. are mandatory and learned Judge, S.C.C. cannot defer or postpone the matter of striking of defence after recording of evidence, which shall be meaningless and amounts to willful breach of law. There are a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this point.

4. In E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC 123 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document