JUDGMENT - V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :---By the instant revision, an order refusing to review the earlier order is being challenged. The factual panorama is as follows :--- A civil suit came to be filed against the applicants City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and the Executive Engineer, Water Works Department by the present non-applicant. The suit proceeded from time to time. Written statement was field. However, on 23-11-1992 an application Exh. 28 came to be made under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code for discovery of certain documents. This application was replied to by the present applicants by their reply dated 10-12-1992 and they opposed the application. On 12-2-1993 the orders came to be passed on Exhs. 29 30 wherein the defendant was directed to produce the copies of the documents in the Court. It seems that thereafter an application came to be made for discovery of documents on oath since the documents ordered to be produced were not filed. This application came to be made on 20-10-1993 vide Exh. 34 under Order 11, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code. This application dated 20-10-1993 was allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 15-9-1994. The Court observed therein that no reply was filed by the defendant. So the application was allowed without reply and the application was being allowed in the interest of justice. The defendants were directed to discover the documents on oath as per Serial Nos. 1 to 12 on or before 5-10-1994 as prayed by the plaintiff. It seems that since the order was not complied with on 5-10-1994 a further application came to be made vide Exh. 36. By that application, the plaintiff prayed for striking out the defence of the defendants on account of non-compliance of the order dated 15-9-1994 as per the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 of Civil Procedure Code. The Court by its order dated 20-1-1995 observed that no reply was field by the defendants to the application Exh. 36 and that the defendants had failed to comply with the orders below Exh. 34 and, therefore, it directed to strike out the defence under Order 11, Rule 21. This order was passed on 20-1-1995. 2.A review application came to be made on the same day. It was stated in the review application that the defendants were unable to file a reply to Exh. 34 and, therefore, it directed to strike out the defence under Order 11, Rule 21. This order was passed on 20-1-1995. 2.A review application came to be made on the same day. It was stated in the review application that the defendants were unable to file a reply to Exh. 36 as the defendants were not aware of the same as no copy thereof was served on the defendants. It was also pointed out that the defendants by the reply Exh. 29 had given an offer to the plaintiff to inspect the record by coming to the office of the defendants and the plaintiff did not avail of that opportunity. It was also reiterated that the defendants were filing the entire record in their possession relating to the subject matter of the suit and that they did not possess any other document besides the ones which were filed in the Court. The trial Court obtained the say of the plaintiff on this application for review and the plaintiff contended before the trial Court that the defendant was constantly absent and that the copy of Exh. 36 was already filed by the plaintiff with the Court and, therefore, there was no question of the said Exh. 36 not being served on the defendants. It was also pointed out that if the defendants wanted to challenge the order passed on Exh. 36, then they could have filed an appeal. The trial Court rejected the application of review made under the provisions of Order 47 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code which necessitates the present revision. 3.Shri B.R. Gawai, the learned Counsel for the applicants/defendants, strenuously contended that in the first place there was no reason for the trial Court to strike out the defence of the applicants as there was no deliberate non-compliance with the order. He contended that before the defence was ordered to be struck off a notice was liable to be given under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 which notice was not given to his client. He, therefore, contends that the original order passed striking out the defence on 20-1-1995 itself was illegal. He further says that since the order was apparently illegal, the Court was bound to review the same. He, therefore, contends that the original order passed striking out the defence on 20-1-1995 itself was illegal. He further says that since the order was apparently illegal, the Court was bound to review the same. 4.Shri R.J. Verma, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff here, strongly protested and contended that right from beginning the attitude of the defendants was extremely relaxed and time and again there was nobody to attend on behalf of the defendants including their counsel. He pointed out that the plaintiff had made the application for discovery of documents on oath solely because the defendants had failed to comply with the order passed by the Court directing the defendants to produce the documents. He pointed out that his suit was filed somewhere in the year 1987 and inspite of the application for discovery of documents having been made as back as on 20-10-1993, it was only on 15-9-1994, that is, after almost one year that the order was passed directing the discovery of the documents on oath under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 12. He further pointed out that the defendants were given the specific time upto 5-10-1994 and they did not comply with the order nor was there any effort on their part to comply with the same and, therefore, there was nothing wrong if the Court proceeded to strike out the defence. As regards the notice, Shri Verma points out that as per the usual practice in the Nagpur District Court the copy of the application for striking out the defence was already kept with the Court for being obtained by the other side. He further pointed out that even after the order was passed the said order was appealable but the appeal was not chosen to be filed and instead a review application came to be filed which was not maintainable at all as the Court had committed no mistake whatsoever and there was hardly any justification for the review. On this ground, he opposed the application. 5.It is obvious that the attitude of the defendants in this case has been extremely casual and relaxed. It is obvious and found from the uncontroverted affidavits on record that a simple application for discovery of the documents on oath took almost one year to be ordered upon and after the order was passed, a sufficient time was given for its compliance upto 5-10-1994. It is obvious and found from the uncontroverted affidavits on record that a simple application for discovery of the documents on oath took almost one year to be ordered upon and after the order was passed, a sufficient time was given for its compliance upto 5-10-1994. It is an admitted position that on or before 5-10-1994 the order was not complied with. There was nothing wrong, therefore, for the plaintiff to file an application for striking out the defence. Order 11, Rule 21 specifically provides that where an order of discovery is not complied with by any party and if such party is a defendant then such defence could be struck out and for that purpose an application could be made by the party. The only rider added by amendment is that such order could be made only after the notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case when an application dated 5-10-1994 was made under Order 11, Rule 21 for striking out the defence, the defendants did not even bother to file a reply to that application. There is no denial anywhere on the record of this civil revision that the copy of that application was not filed along with the application for being served on the defendants. A written reply to this revision has been filed by the plaintiff and in that affidavit the plaintiff has specifically stated in paragraph 6 that the application Exh. 36 was filed with a copy for defendants. It has also been reiterated that even after that the matter was adjourned thrice for defendants' reply i.e. on 31-10-1994, 21-12-1994 and on 20-1-1995 the Court proceeded to pass the order as no reply was filed by the defendants. It is reiterated that the defendants did not file any reply to the application Exh. 36. This affidavit has not been controverted by the applicants. If this is so then the whole defence of the defendants crumbles that they did not have a necessary notice. Notice contemplated under Order 11, Rule 21 could not be said to be a formal notice. 36. This affidavit has not been controverted by the applicants. If this is so then the whole defence of the defendants crumbles that they did not have a necessary notice. Notice contemplated under Order 11, Rule 21 could not be said to be a formal notice. If the party concerned is supplied with a copy of the application and if the matter is adjourned by Court thrice for enabling the party to file a reply thereof, it could not be said that there was no proper or adequate notice of the application to the defendants as contemplated under Order 11, Rule 21. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of Shri Gawai that the defendants had no notice of the application under Order 11, Rule 21 or that the Court had not given a reasonable opportunity to the defendants of being heard. 6.The matters do not stop there. The Court thereafter proceeded to strike out the defence on 20-1-1995. Thereafter also instead of filing an appeal which was maintainable against such an order, the defendants chose to file a review application. A review would lie where any person is aggrieved by an order from which an appeal is allowed but which appeal has not been preferred and to that extent the review application was perfectly justified. However, the further condition for review is discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge and which could not be produced by the party at the time when the order sought to be reviewed was passed. The third condition for the review is that there must be some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or at least there should be any sufficient reason. There is no doubt that all these three conditions were wholly unavailable in the present case. All that has been said in the review application is that the concerned party was not aware of the application Exh 36. It is really a mystery that an order passed on 15-9-1994 was ignored by the defendants though the matter was adjourned thrice i.e. firstly on 5-10-1994, then on 31-10-1994 and thirdly on 21-12-1994. More mysterious is the apathy shown by the defendants to the application Exh. 36. That apart the review application itself makes the most interesting reading. It is really a mystery that an order passed on 15-9-1994 was ignored by the defendants though the matter was adjourned thrice i.e. firstly on 5-10-1994, then on 31-10-1994 and thirdly on 21-12-1994. More mysterious is the apathy shown by the defendants to the application Exh. 36. That apart the review application itself makes the most interesting reading. It only says that the defendants were not aware of Exh. 36 as no copy thereof was served on the defendant. Strangely enough, the defendants do not even refer to the order having been passed on 15-9-1994 against them giving them the time to comply with the same upto 5-10-1994. There is absolutely no explanation for the non-compliance between these two dates or even thereafter. The time spent is almost three months. It has already been pointed out that firstly the Court did not commit any error in directing the parties to discover the documents on oath. Secondly, it also did not commit any error in ordering the defence to be struck out for the non-compliance of the order as in reality there was a non-compliance of the order. Thirdly it cannot be said that the defendants were not aware of that order. Fourthly there is absolutely no reason as to why even after making an application on 5-10-1994 the defendants did not know of any such application right till 20-1-1995 when the order striking out the defence was passed. 7.Even in the present revision application the defendants have merely prayed for setting aside the order rejecting review application without praying for quashing the order of striking off the defence. There is no justification at all as to why in the first place, the order of the Court was not followed. The Court has undoubtedly power and discretion in the matter of striking off the defence but once it is seen that there is a failure to comply with its order, the party guilty of such non-compliance will have to give a reasonable explanation for the same. In the present case, not only have the defendants failed to offer any such explanation but have further also failed to ask for the condition of the same before this Court. In the present case, not only have the defendants failed to offer any such explanation but have further also failed to ask for the condition of the same before this Court. Instead of filing a reply to the application for striking off the defence, they kept mum and thereafter when that order was passed instead of challenging the same by an appeal they chose to file an untenable review application thus losing even the limitation period for filing an appeal. Their attitude was relaxed and approach casual. 8.The review application was wholly untenable and was rightly rejected. Even this Court does not find fault even with the earlier orders. In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision is rejected with costs. Civil revision rejected.