ORDER
G.N. Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner is the defendant In an eviction suit in which his defence against ejectment has been struck out on account of default on his part in making a deposit of the arrears of rent in accordance with the Court’s order passed on the 24th February, 1971. The relevant portion
of that order was that the defendant must deposit the arrears of rent from the 28th July, 1969 at the rate of Rs. 23/- per month within fifteen days from the date of the order, failing which his defence against ejectment would be struck out.
2. It is not in dispute that the court had remained closed from the 24th February, 1971 until the 14th March, 1971 and had re-opened on the 15th March, 1971. Meanwhile, the period of fifteen days mentioned in the Court’s order dated the 24th February, 1971, had elapsed, implying thereby that the last date available to the petitioner for making the deposit of the arrears of rent was the 15th March, 1971.
3. On the 15th March, 1971, the petitioner tendered a chalan for making the deposit in question. The chalan after being checked and passed was delivered to him on the 16th March, 1971. The petitioner deposited the amount, namely, Rs. 463.50 in the Government Treasury on the 16th March, 1971 itself. This was done in spite of the fact that in terms of the endorsement of the judge-in-charge on the chalan in question dated the 16th March, 1971, the officer-in-charge of Bhagalpur Treasury had been authorised to receive the deposit it tendered to him before 3 P.M- on the 17ih March, 1971. The admitted position, therefore, is that the deposit of the arrears of rent was not made on the 15th March, but a day later, namely on the 16th March, 1971. Upon these facts, the question arises whether there was a default on the part of the petitioner so as to make him liable for the penalty imposed by the law, namely that of having his defence against ejectment struck out. The trial Court has taken the view that the petitioner has incurred the said liability and has accordingly, struck out the petitioner’s defence against ejectment.
4. In taking this view, the trial Court has pointed out that on the 15th March, 1971, it was suggested by the court that that day being the last date for making the deposit, the Nazir ought to be authorised to receive the amount. According to the advocate for the defendant in the court below, a suggestion to this effect had been made by the court itself. But the order-sheet of the 15th March, 1971 shows that no petition making such a prayer was eventually filed in court. Accordingly, as the order sheet shows, the court had ordered on 15th March, 1971 that chalan should issue at the risk of the party presenting it. Actually the chalan was returned to the petitioner on the next day, namely the 16th March, 1971, on which date the deposit also was made.
5. Mr. S. C. Sinha appearing on be-half of the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramsarup Prasad v. Shiva Dutta Prasad,
AIR 1960 Pat 560. In that case the order sheet of the court was in the following terms :
“Judgment-debtor files chalan to deposit Rs. 1500/- being the third instalment. Today is the last date for depositing the money. Nazir to receive the money. Put up on 31-8-56 for depositing of Rs. 2000/- being the fourth and last instalment.”
It will be noticed that in the reported case, the judgment-debtor had obtained a specific order from the court authorising the Nazir to receive the money on the ground that that was the last date for making the deposit. It seems to me that it was within the contemplation of either of the court or of the lawyer for the defendant when it was submitted to the court on the 15th March, 1971 that the defendant would file a petition for a direction to the Nazir to receive the amount. Yet, as I have already mentioned, no such petition was filed before the Court. The court was, therefore, not in a position to make any such direction to the Nazir of the nature that was made in the reported case. The argument put forward by the other side is that no such order was obtained from the court on the 15th March, 1971 because the petitioner was not ready with the money on that date. It is urged that had the petitioner been ready with the money on the 15th March, 1971, there was no reason why he would not have obtained a specific direction from the court to the Nazir to receive the money. In my opinion there is considerable force in this contention and, at any rate, this is a relevant distinction between the instant case and the reported case. The ruling relied upon by Mr. Sinha is, therefore, of no avail to the petitioner.
6. Mr. Sinha has then relied upon the endorsement on the body of the chalan made under the signature of the judge-in-charge, authorising the officer-in-charge of the Treasury to receive the deposit if tendered before 3 P.M. on the 17th March, 1971. But this direction has to be read along with the order passed a day before, namely on the 15th March, 1971, whereby it was clearly indicated that the chalan would issue at the risk of the party. Therefore, the endorsement on the body of the chalan upon which Mr. Sinha relies cannot possibly modify the specific order contained in the order sheet whereby it was categorically Indicated that the chalan was being issued at the risk of the petitioner.
7. For the foregoing reasons I am in agreement with the trial Court that there was a default on the part of the petitioner in complying with the peremptory order of the court dated the 24th February, 1971 and that under the law, as it stands, there is no escape from the conclusion that the defence of the petitioner against ejectment stood struck off. The law may be rigorous
in this respect, but the rigour of the law can be no ground for not, giving effect to it
8. In the result, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed; but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
9. Let the records of the case be sent down at once.