“It may now be considered whether the application filed by the appellant before the court below for the exercise of powers under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. was maintainable. Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. to the extent to which that provision is relevant on the facts of this case, states that where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a defendant, have his defence, if any, struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made on such application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is thus seen that the remedy of having the defence of a defendant struck out would arise only when he fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents and not in other cases. In this case, the respondent was not delivered interrogatories for being answered by an order of Court under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. Likewise, the respondent was not directed by an order of court to make discovery on oath of the documents in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suit under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P.C. No order for inspection of documents was also passed against the respondent under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P.C. The exercise of the power vested in the Court to strike out the defence of a defendant and to place him in the same position as if he had not defended the suit is limited under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. to cases where the defendant fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories or an order for discovery or inspection of documents. In other words, an order under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. cannot be passed in cases falling
