1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Shri Sadik & anr. V/s. Shyam Sunder Sarraf (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1920/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC Date of Order :: August 16, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri for the appellants. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2010 whereby the defence of the appellants-defendants has been closed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the appellants have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The plaintiffs-respondent filed an application for the determination of provisional rent. Vide order dated 18.05.2008, the learned Judge directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.12,625/- as arrears of rent with interest. The plaintiff filed an application and stated that the learned Court decide the provisional rent on 18.05.2007, and as per the direction of the learned Court, he supplied the Bank Account number to the defendant on 29.08.2007. However, inspite of the said information, the defendant deposited only Rs.1200/- in his account. Therefore, the defence of the defendant should be struck off. The 2 defendants filed a reply of the application filed by the plaintiff, and stated that the plaintiff did not supply the account number in which the rent could be deposited. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 12.03.2010, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants too have a right to plead their defence. The defence should not have been closed in a hyper- mechanical manner. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the appellants have defaulting in depositing the rent amount within the period granted to them by the Court. The delay in depositing the rent as directed by the Court, does entail the striking off of the defence. According to the Apex Court in case of such a delay in depositing the rent, the Court does not have the power to extend the time and to permit the defence to be pleaded. Thus, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-