JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 14.3.96 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 3. Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 168/93 whereby the evidence of the defendant-petitioners has been ordered to be closed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the legality and regularity of the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, who are legal representatives of the original defendant Moti Lal, while assailing the impugned order contended that the case was pending trial at the stage of recording evidence of the defendant-petitioners. The plaintiff non-petitioner. Society, initially, through its Chairman Ganesh Singh Bhati instituted suit against the original defendant-Moti Lal and, during the pendency of the trial, due to death of Moti Lal, his legal representatives have been substituted in place of Moti Lal whereas, similarly, due to death of Ganesh Singh, the present Chairman Smt. Shakuntala Bhati has been brought on record to prosecute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord. The plaintiff had instituted suit against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and consequential arrears as well as sub-letting and, during the pendency of the trial, since, after determination of rent under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'), the defendants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and, accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to strike out defence against eviction on the ground falling under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act vide its order dated 9.3.95. This order of striking out of defence of the defendants was challenged by way of appeal in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur but without any success. It further enabled the defendants to file a revision petition in this Court which was also, lastly, on 2.4.96 dismissed thereby affirming the order dated 9.3.95 passed by the trial Judge. Resultantly, so far as defence against eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, as determined by the Court, the same stands finally struck out and the petitioners cannot be allowed to agitate against the same. 4. Resultantly, so far as defence against eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, as determined by the Court, the same stands finally struck out and the petitioners cannot be allowed to agitate against the same. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, besides the ground of default in payment of rent, there are other grounds as well on the basis of which there is likelihood of success being achieved by the defendant-petitioners and the order of striking out defence of the defendants by the trial Court on 9.3.95 cannot travel beyond the striking out defence under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and so the defendants are rightfully entitled to adduce evidence in support as well as in rebuttal of other issues for which they have been deprived of the opportunity and the trial Court, as is evidenced from the order-sheets dated 11.3.96 and 14.3.96 committed an illegality and serious impropriety while closing evidence of the defendants on 14.3.96 whereas, as borne out of order-sheet dated 11.3.96, file of the case itself was not traceable and instead the clerk concerned was directed that the file of the record be immediately traced out and the same be placed before the Court on 14.3.96. However, vide order dated 14.3.96, though the defendants were not required to have been present with their evidence yet their evidence was closed on the ground that upto 4.15 p.m. neither any witness nor counsel for the defendants had appeared before the Court and since previously several adjournments had already been granted, therefore, the evidence of the defendants was being closed. On the contrary, order-sheet dated 12.2.96 itself shows that the record had been received from the revisional Court after rejection of the revision petition and, therefore, the defendants were allowed to adduce their evidence on 11.3.96 and, hence, these self-contradictory orders also establish commission of serious irregularity in conducting the trial and, accordingly, the impugned order had resulted in miscarriage of justice besides irreparable injury to the petitioners. 5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the contents of the order-sheets dated 11.3.96 and 14.3.96 cannot be disputed. 5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the contents of the order-sheets dated 11.3.96 and 14.3.96 cannot be disputed. Since, as per the order-sheet dated 12.2.96, as above the defendants were given an opportunity to adduce their evidence on 11.3.96 and, as evidenced from the record itself, the file itself was not traceable on 11.3.96 and there did not arise any question of either recording or producing of defence evidence. The defendants were not directed to bring/adduce the evidence on 14.3.96 and instead only the clerk concerned was directed to traceout the record and keep the same ready for production on 14.3.96. Therefore, when the defendants were not required to either adduce or produce defence evidence, the learned trial Judge fell into a serious jurisdictional irregularity still thereby closing evidence of the defence and, therefore, in view of the fact that the defendants were already allowed to adduce evidence on other issues, in the manner indicated hereinbefore, the trial Judge could not have passed the impugned order. 6. In D. B. decision in Ramesh Chand Pandey v. Babu Lal, on a reference from S. B. of this Court, on the question whether the order passed under Section 13(5) striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction would apply to all grounds of eviction specified in Section 13(1)(a) to (1) and other laws or such striking out is limited to the defence against eviction on the ground specified in Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench answered that the order passed under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction, would apply only to the grounds of eviction specified in Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Act. 7. In view of these circumstances, this petition, being well merited, deserves to be accepted. 8. On the basis of above discussion, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 14.3.96 thereby closing defence evidence is hereby set aside and the trial Judge is directed to proceed from the stage of 11.3.96 thereby affording not more than two more chances to the defendants to adduce their complete evidence. 8. On the basis of above discussion, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 14.3.96 thereby closing defence evidence is hereby set aside and the trial Judge is directed to proceed from the stage of 11.3.96 thereby affording not more than two more chances to the defendants to adduce their complete evidence. The defendants shall not be allowed to lead any evidence on the ground of eviction specified in Section 13(1)(a) of the Act but, on other grounds, they shall be at liberty to adduce legal evidence. 9. Through their counsel, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the trial Court on 14.10.97 failing which the trial Court shall not be obliged to notify other party before proceeding further according to law. 10. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.