THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3875 OF 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.751 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I-Addl. District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property by evicting the defendant/revision petitioner as well as recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was taken by the defendant on rent under a Rental Agreement dated 23.10.2008 agreeing to pay the rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2020 of 2010 under Order 15A Rule 1 of C.P.C. seeking a direction to the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs towards arrears of rent and continuing to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- till the disposal of the case. The said petition was allowed by the Court below by order dated 7.3.2011. Since the defendant failed to comply with the said order, the plaintiff by Memo dated 23.06.2011 requested the Court to strike off the defence of the defendant. Since it was contended by the defendant that against the order dated 7.3.2011 in I.A.No.2020 of 2010 he preferred C.R.P.No.2628 of 2011 the Court below adjourned the matter from time to time for about four weeks. However, as this Court did not pass any order staying the operation of the order in I.A.No.2020 of 2010 and in spite of the same, the defendant failed to deposit the amounts in compliance with the order dated 7.3.2011 in I.A.No.2020 of 2010, the Court below by order dated 29.7.2011 struck off the defence set up by the defendant. Aggrieved by the said order dated 29.7.2011, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the admitted fact that the order in I.A.No.2020 of 2010 stands good as of today, the defendant/revision petitioner was obligated to make the deposits within the time stipulated by the Court below. Admittedly, the defendant/revision petitioner failed to make such deposit. Hence, the Court below has rightly struck off the defence of the defendant. However, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before passing the order of striking off the defence, the Court below ought to have served a fresh notice on the defendants or his advocate to show cause as to why the defence should not be struck off and since no such procedure was followed, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. It is to be noticed that order XV-A was inserted by way of amendment by the High Court of A.P. vide G.O.Rt.No.156, Law (L.A. & J-Home Courts-D1) dated 29.01.2005 which reads as under: Order XV-A: (1) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or licence fee, shall deposit the amount, representing the undisputed arrears, calculated up to that date into the Court and shall continue to deposit such amount, which becomes payable thereafter within one week from the date on which it becomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the suit. (2) Where the defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exists, it shall be competent for the Court to pass an order in this regard, after affording opportunity to both the parties, and in case any amount is found due, stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under Rule 1. Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be ‘[recovered]’, for a period not exceeding 15 days. If the defendant commits default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court shall strike offence the defence. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. Explanation: The expression “the amount representing the undisputed arrears” shall mean the sum of rent, or licence fee, calculated for the period, for which it remained unpaid, after deducting from it, any amount. (a) paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property. (b) Paid to the plaintiff under written acknowledgment; and (c) Deposited into the Court, in any proceedings, in relation to the said property.” A plain reading of the above provision shows that there is no need to give a further opportunity to the defendant before striking off the defence. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. At any rate, it is clear from the order under revision that before striking off the defence of the defendant, the Court below had given ample opportunity to the defendant/revision petitioner and the order under revision came to be passed after hearing the defendant. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the order under revision did not suffer from any patent error of fact or law. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.09.2011 Pn/klp