JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned Single judge in Misc. Case. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1986 arising out of O.S. No 1/87. The learned Single judge in the impugned order struck out the defence of Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in relation to the imputations in respect of which further and better particulars were ordered to be furnished and which were not furnished within the time permitted by the Court. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant did not seriously dispute the jurisdiction of the Court to strike out the pleadings for non-compliance of directions to furnish better particulars, but contended that the learned Single judge did not exercise care and caution before visiting the Defendants with the penal consequence which has a far reaching effect. Undoubtedly the striking out of tile defence of a party is a serious matter arid recourse should not be taken to the same unless supported by compelling reasons. 3. In A.H.Os. 26 and 27 of 1988 we have already held that the particulars asked for are necessary to be furnished in the absence of which the plea taken by the Defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed to be sustained. The Court would have no other nurse except striking out the defence of the Defendants if the Defendants deliberately do not comply with the said directions. In this connections our attention has been invited to an application filed by the present Appellants praying for time to comply with the directions. The learned Single judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the same was filed at a belated stage and the conduct of the Defendants did not suggest any attempt to have been made to comply with the direction to give better particulars during the intervening period. 4. In A.H.Os. Nos. 26 and 27 of 1988 we have confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge directing to give better particulars and further observed that a reasonable time should now be given to the Defendants to comply with the same order. 4. In A.H.Os. Nos. 26 and 27 of 1988 we have confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge directing to give better particulars and further observed that a reasonable time should now be given to the Defendants to comply with the same order. It therefore, necessarily follows that the order impugned in these appeals striking out the defence of the Defendants should be set aside and the petitions field by the Appellant in that behalf should lie over to be considered in the event the Defendants fail to comply within the time to be granted for the purpose. These appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. D.P. Mohapatra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed