Wp16.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2010 Dwarkanath Ganpat Warde ....Petitioner. Vs. Riyaz Sayyad Gondekar & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Pratap Patil for the Petitioner. Ms. Anulata Saundawkar i/by Ms. Gauri Godse for the Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 9th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 The Petitioner-original Defendant, has challenged the order dated 16th September, 2009, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibag, as committed defaults in complying with the specific order dated 21/01/2004, passed by the Court. 2 The learned Judge, has recorded in first paragraph itself, various dates whereby, the Petitioner-Defendant moved the Applications and expressed desire and willingness to deposit the rent amount but for various reasons, the Court did not pass specific orders on the same. Without going to those details and even if there is default, I see there is no reason to struck off the defence itself. Wp16.10 2 3 Every litigant has right to defend the litigation in accordance with law. In eviction matter, the ground of defaults and an issue of habitual defaulter are always subject to regular payment. The Court, therefore, while considering/ hearing the matter may take note of this facet of irregular deposit of the rent. However, that itself cannot be the reason to struck-off the defence so raised. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes statement that the Petitioner-Defendant has deposited the rent, and hereinafter will deposit the rent regularly. 5 In view of above, the impugned order dated 16/09/2009 is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. 6 The Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)