JUDGMENT 1. THE plaintiffs opposite parties filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to direct the defendant-petitioner to answer two interrogatories. The court allowed the prayer. Then time was extended. No answer to the interrogatories was given by the petitioner. Subsequently she filed an application to bring a stay, order from the high Court. No stay order was issued by this Court. The defendant-petitioner filed an application under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act. Then the plaintiffs put in an application under Order 11 Rule 21 of the code for striking out the defendant's defence for non-compliance of the court's order. An objection was filed. The prayer was allowed and the defendant's defence struck out. Than the defendant s petition under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was taken up for hearing. The court stated that since the defence had been struck put the application under section 17 (2) and (2a)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was not maintainable. That petition was rejected. Then she filed a petition under. section 151 of the Code for reconsideration and annexed the answer to the interrogatories. That prayer was disallowed. Against these two orders, one striking out the defence and another dismissing the prayer under sections 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, this revisional application has been filed. 2. IT has been contended on behalf of the defendant petitioner that in the case of bangai Singh vs. Palit Singh reported in 7 clj 298 at pages 298 and 299, it has been stated that section 136 of the Old v Civil procedure Code renders the defendant liable to have his defence struck out upon failure to answer an interrogatory. It does not make it obligatory upon the court to strike out the defence under all circumstances. If there is obstinacy or contumacy on the defendant's part or willful attempt to disregard the court's order, an order under section 136 of the Code is appropriate. In this respect, the court's order striking out the defence is wrong because on the 12th july, 1978, an order was passed to answer the interrogatories within 10 days. Then the time to answer the interrogatories was extended. In this respect, the court's order striking out the defence is wrong because on the 12th july, 1978, an order was passed to answer the interrogatories within 10 days. Then the time to answer the interrogatories was extended. Thereafter the defendant made a prayer and time was again fixed on the 1st September, 1978, for orders. No answer to the interrogatories was given. The defendant did not violate the court's order or commit contempt of court or act obstinately. So, there was no scope for striking out his defence under order 11 Rule 21 of the Code. When the application under section 151 of the Code was filed, she annexed answer to the two interrogatories to her application. In the case of A. Ammal vs. Rama Iyer in AIR 1922 madras 426, it has been stated that the feet that the petition was headed as under section 151 of the Code does not debar the court from proceeding with it under any other provision which the court may find actually applicable. The application under section 17 (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act is an independent one. Such application can be filed even when the defence has been struck out. So, the court passed wrong orders. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has stated that the court directed the defendant to answer to interrogatories. The second one, was to answer the question, to whom the defendant had sublet the disputed premises. No answer to that question was willfully given by her. So, the court's order was violated. Moreover, no sufficient cause or new material was brought to the notice of the court within the meaning of the provisions; of order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. After the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 11 rule 21 of the Code for 'striking out the defendant's defence, she filed an objection giving all her grounds therein. All those objections have been again stated in the application under section 151 of the Code. So, nothing new was stated in this Court or in her application under section 151 off the code or in the objection filed by her in answer to the plaintiffs' petition for striking out her defence. The Bench case of Namita vs. Amalendu in AIR 1977 Cal. So, nothing new was stated in this Court or in her application under section 151 off the code or in the objection filed by her in answer to the plaintiffs' petition for striking out her defence. The Bench case of Namita vs. Amalendu in AIR 1977 Cal. 187 has been cited to show that there an order was passed striking out the defendants defence because of failure to comply with the order for making further discovery. It has been stated that where an appealable order is passed and no appeal is filed, no revisional application is maintainable and the court's order cannot be set aside by an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant's application under section 151 of the Code was rejected. After the defendant's defence was struck out, in view of the provisions of Rule 21 (1) of order 11 of the Code, the defendant was placed in the position as if she did not file any written statement to defend the suit. Consequently there was no scope for considering her prayer under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act. Both the prayers were rightly rejected. 3. ON the 12th July, 1978, the court allowed the plaintiffs' prayer and directed the defendant to answer two interrogatories within 10 days. On the 21st July, 1978, time was extended up to August 2, 1978, for answering the interrogatories. Then on the 2nd August, 1978, on the defendant's prayer the date was fixed on 1-9-1978 for orders. On the 1st September, 1978, the date was fixed on. the 4th September, 1978, for bringing a stay order from the High court because such prayer was made by the defendant. The High Court was moved in the matter, but no stay order was issued. On the 4th November, 1978, the court fixed the 10th November, 1978, for hearing the petition under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, but the matter was adjourned from time to. time. Then on the 22nd February, 1979, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code for striking out the defence of the defendant because the court's order dated 12th July, 1978. directing the defendant to answer the interrogatories, was not complied with. The court allowed that prayer. 4. time. Then on the 22nd February, 1979, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code for striking out the defence of the defendant because the court's order dated 12th July, 1978. directing the defendant to answer the interrogatories, was not complied with. The court allowed that prayer. 4. ON the face of it, the court's order is erroneous because though the court did not specifically state, which order was not complied with by the defendant, but impliedly, the plaintiffs' prayer was allowed because they stated in their application that the defendant did not comply with the court's order passed on the 12th July, 1978. directing the defendant to answer two interrogatories. The court made a mistake because on the 21st July, 1978, time was extended by the court to answer the interrogatories up to the 2nd August, 1978. In the case of B. S M. Company vs. Triloke Nath in AIR 1978 SC. 1436 , it has been stated that an order under Rule 21 of Order 11 of the Code should not be passed unless there is obstinacy, contumacy or willful attempt to disregard the court's order. In this case, none of the aforesaid three contingencies arose because the defendant was not guilty of obstinacy, contumacy or willful disregard of the court's order. Of course, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has stated that the defendant willfully avoided giving answer to interrogatory no. 2 as to whom she had sublet the disputed premises. Now, the defence is that before the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, came into force, she had sublet the premises in question. Since it was a pre Act sub-letting, the defendant was not required to answer that interrogatory and did not give the answer thereto. The defence could not be struck out under Rule 21 of Order 11 of the Code. If the answer was insufficient, then necessary direction could be asked for under Rule 11 of Order 21 of the code to answer further either by affidavit or by viva voce examination. It has' been contended on her behalf that since such pre- Act subletting relates to her defence in the case, she cannot be compelled to give such answer. So, there is no difficulty in that respect. It has' been contended on her behalf that since such pre- Act subletting relates to her defence in the case, she cannot be compelled to give such answer. So, there is no difficulty in that respect. In the case of Provash Kumar ganguly vs. Nithar Lai in 28 CWN 928 at page 929, it has been stated that the power exercisable under section 151 and Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not mutually exclusive. In the case of tulslhi Ram vs. Sitaram in 63 CWN 300 at pages 309 and 310, it has been stated that where the plaintiff's case cannot be brought under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code, no relief can be granted to him under section 151 of the Code. 5. OF course, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has referred to the case or Balmer Laurie and Company vs. Brooke Estates Limited in air 1979 Cal. 64 to show that where the defence has been struck out under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code, an application under section 151 to restore the defence is misconceived and not entertainable. But this, single Bench decision did not consider the effect of the Full Bench decision in the cases of Bimala vs. Aghore Chandra in AIR 197'5 Cal. 80 F. B. and the later Bench case of Balaram vs. Star Trading and Investment limited in 1978 (1) CLJ 174 In the Full berrch case of Bimala Devi (supra), an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the code was dismissed for default. It was an appealable order. The Full Bench has stalled that though it is an appealable order, but the appeal will be an illusory one and hence an application under section 151 of the Code can be filed to restore that Misc. Case, which had been dismissed for default. The case of Balaram vs. Start Trading and investment (Supra), the previous Bench case of Namita vs. Amalendu (supra) has been considered. It has been stated that the effect of the Full Bench decision of bimala Devi's case was not brought to the notice of that Bench. In the case of balaram vs. Star Trading and Investment (supra), the defendant failed to discover on oath within the time allowed by the court. It has been stated that the effect of the Full Bench decision of bimala Devi's case was not brought to the notice of that Bench. In the case of balaram vs. Star Trading and Investment (supra), the defendant failed to discover on oath within the time allowed by the court. Then an application was filed under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code to strike out the defence and the prayer was allowed. The defendant filed an application under section 151 of the Code. It has been stated by a bench of our Court that though that order is appealable, the provisions for appeal will be insufficient to meet the necessities of the defence because it may be said to be meaningless and ineffective. Hence, though no appeal could be filed against the order striking out the defence, an application under section 151 of the Code was maintainable. It is, therefore, held that the present application under section 151 of the Code is maintainable in law. 6. THE court's order dismissing the defendant's second petition under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act proceeded on the assumption that since the defence had been struck out, that application was not maintainable. But it has already been stated that the application under section 151 of the Code is maintainable. So, it is not necessary to discuss if the prayer under section 17 (2) of the Act is an independent one. It has been previously discussed that there is an error apparent on the face of the record because the defendant did not violate the court's order dated the 12th July, 1978, to answer the interrogatory. Further petitioner's case can be brought within the purview of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. It is, therefore, a fit case for vacating the order in question and restoring the defendant's defence under section 151 of the code. The prayer made by the defendant petitioner in this respect is allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned judge dismissing the defendant's prayer under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act cannot be sustained. Those two prayers will now be heard by the learned Judge according to law. The submissions made on behalf of the opposite party cannot be accepted. The Rule is made absolute and the impugned orders set aside. Those two prayers will now be heard by the learned Judge according to law. The submissions made on behalf of the opposite party cannot be accepted. The Rule is made absolute and the impugned orders set aside. There will be no order as to costs. 7. LET the records be sent down at once.