A this lacuna in contending that he had not participated in the proceedings of the Trial Court. On February 14. 1966 the defendant Tara Chand moved an application under s. 13 of the Act praying to the Court that the rent due may be determined and the defendants may be directed to deposit the rent. The Court accordingly determined the rent on March 1, 1966 and directed the defendants to deposit .1 sum of Rs. 398-75 Paise on or before April 19, 1966. As the rent was not deposited, the plaintiffs moved an application for striking out the defence of the defendants against eviction for their failure to comply with the provisions of s. 13 ( 4) of the Act. The Court accordingly by its order dated December 14, 1966 struck out th:: defence of the defendants. It may be pertinent to note that althou&11 the appellant had not put in his format appearance he understood the order of the Trial Court dated December 14, 1966 striking out the defence and treated the same as having been passed not only agai,:st c his brothi;rs Padarn Chand and Tara Chand, the two defendants, but also against himself and accordingly he along with his brothers prt>ferred an appeal against that order to the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City on October 30, 1967. This appeal was ultimately dismissed and then the three defendants filed an application for revision before the High Court which was also dismissed by the High Court by its order dated September 19, 1968. Thus it is manifest that the appellant D was fully aware of the proceedings that had taken place as also of the order that had been passed against the defendants striking out their defence. When the record was received back by the Trial Court, Shri Tara Chand Jain Advocate of the defendants informed the Court on November 26, 1968 that he was holding brief only on behalf of the two defendants Padam Chand and Tara Chand and not on behalf of the appellant Gyan Chand. The Court accordingly passed an E order that the suit was to proceed ex parte against the appellant. On November 30, 1968 the appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him and this application found favour with the Trial Court and was accordingly allowed. The appellant was allowed to file his written statement which he filed ( n January 27, 1969. Thereafter the appellant applied to the Court for determining the rent due to the plaintiffs but that application was F rejected on the ground that no amount of rent was payable as the entire rent due had already been paid by the other two defendants. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application before the Trial Court ~or striking out the defence against Gyan Chand as he had not complied with the order under s. 13 ( 4) of the Act passed by the Court prt>viously. The Trail Court, however, did not pass any orders on that application· and ultimately ctismissed the suit holding that there was G llO default.
