THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No.4872 of 2009 ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 05-10-2009 passed in OS No.2544 of 2008 by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Revision petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the above suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and for damages on the ground that he purchased the suit schedule property from one Vinod Kumar under a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2006 and thus, he became the absolute owner of the property in question. His vendor gave the property in question to the defendant on rental basis and the defendant continued in the property in question by paying rents to the plaintiff on the same terms and conditions. Subsequently, the defendant gave an undertaking to vacate the premises by the end of 2006. As the defendant failed to pay the rents, the plaintiff filed the suit. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1854 of 2008 under Order 15-A read with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the defendant to deposit an amount of Rs.71,000/- towards arrears of rent and continue to deposit the monthly rents. The said I.A. was allowed directing the defendant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.14,200/- per month and continue to pay the same till the disposal of the suit. After that, on 5.10.2009, the learned Judge passed the following order: “Counsel for plaintiff filed a memo showing documents to be marked. PW1 is examined. Exs.A1 to A11 are marked. As the defendant failed to comply in depositing arrears of rents, the defence of the defendant has been struck off. For arguments call on 9.10.2009” Challenging the same, the present revision petition is preferred by the defendant. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the Court below ought to have afforded reasonable opportunity to the defendant to adduce his evidence. He further contends that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the defendant is allowed to adduce his evidence. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The contention of the defendant that due to his ill- health, he was admitted in different hospitals on different dates and therefore, he was unable to comply with the directions given by the Court below. A perusal of the record goes to show that the Court below vide its order dated 6th March, 2009 in I.A.No.1854 of 2008 in O.S.No.2544 of 2008 passed the order directing the defendant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.14,200/- per month. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.854 of 2009 seeking to enlarge time to deposit the arrears of rent and the same was allowed on 17th September, 2009. In spite of sufficient opportunity was afforded to the defendant by extending the time, the defendant failed to comply with the directions. It shows that the defendant willfully dragging on the matter in complying with the directions of the Court below and there are no bona fides on the part of the defendant. In this view of the matter, I feel that the order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. __________ 29-10-2009 rkk