JUDGMENT 1. - This matter comes up on a miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 (f) CPC filed by the appellant- defendant No.1 (hereinafter 'the defendant') against the order dated 3-6-2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City, whereby the defence of the defendant has been struck off by the trial court by resort to Order 11, Rule 21 CPC in the respondent-plaintiff's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') suit for specific performance in respect of a purported agreement to sell dated 27-7-1988. The State of Rajasthan and Municipal council Hindaun City were also impleaded subsequently in the said suit through an amendment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the defendant, as also the plaintiff. The respondents-defendants No.2 to 4 are proforma parties in this appeal. 3. Written statement to the plaint was filed by the defendant wherein it was stated that the suit land had been sold to others and as such a decree for specific performance could not be granted by the court as prayed without impleading the subsequent purchasers as party. It was stated that the land was in the possession of subsequent purchasers. As the reference to subsequent purchasers was vague in the written statement, the plaintiff moved an application on 3-1-2002 purported to be one under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC, but in effect seeking better particulars. Vide order dated 19-2-2002, the trial court required the defendant to furnish better particulars. Pursuant to order dated 19-2-2002, the defendant did not furnish better particulars. Dissatisfied with the "better particulars" supplied by the defendant pursuant to order dated 19-2-2002, the plaintiff moved an application on 30-9-2002 purporting to be one Order 11, Rule 21 CPC for striking off the defence of the defendant as he had failed to comply with the directions issued by the court on 19-2-2002 and was obfuscating requisite information and delaying the trial deliberately to defeat the plaintiff's right to obtain an executable decree in his suit for specific performance. The application was opposed. 4. In the meantime the plaintiff appears to have moved an application before the trial court under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for impleading the State of Rajasthan and the Municipal Council, Hindaun City as defendant in his suit. The trial court vide order dated 3-3-2005 permitted the plaintiff to implead them as defendants. Requisite amendment was carried out. The trial court vide order dated 3-3-2005 permitted the plaintiff to implead them as defendants. Requisite amendment was carried out. Thereupon the defendant on 16-5-2005 filed an amended written statement to the amended plaint and in the process used the opportunity to plead inter alia that because of litigation in respect of suit land the arrangement by which the property had earlier been put to sale as referred to in the original written statement had ended, the sale cancelled and possession of the suit property had been restored to defendant. In rejoinder to the amended written statement, objections were taken by the plaintiff to the variation in the defendant's defence on the issue of sale of suit land. The matter stood before the trial court thus. 5. At this stage the trial court referring to its earlier order dated 19-2-2002, and its non compliance by the defendant by filing vague and incomplete "better particulars" as to whom the suit land had been sold, vide order dated 3-6-2006 struck off the defence of the defendants under Order 11, Rule 21 CPC. No cognisance of the amended written statement and its effect for whatever its worth averring the cancellation of the sale arrangement was taken. 6. Mr. J.P. Goyal, appearing on behalf of the defendant has submitted that the impugned order dated 3-6-2006 is an absolute misdirection in law, inasmuch as what the defendants were required under trial court's order dated 19-2-2002 was to supply better particulars, albeit the application was indeed captioned as one under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC. He submits that when in fact the application was filed, Order 6, Rule 5 CPC had already been deleted by amendment of CPC as of 1999 (Act No.46 of 1999). He submitted that Order 11 Rules 12 CPC pertains to interrogatories and discovery of documents. A bare look at the application dated 3-1-2002 filed by the plaintiff, Senior Counsel argued, indicates that neither interrogatories were served on the defendant nor discovery of documents sought.Counsel submitted that in the circumstances even if directions to furnish "better particulars" can be attributed to the inherent power of the trial court, yet non supply thereof could not have entailed resort to the draconian provisions of Order 11, Rule 12 CPC and striking off the defence of the defendant in the event of non compliance therewith. Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Trilok Nath Mahajan [ AIR 1978 SC 1436 ] has held that an order of striking out defence under Order 11, Rule 21 CPC should not be made unless there has been persistent obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the defendant or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court to produce the requisite documents in spite of the court's directions. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 CPC must be strictly enforced, it does not follow that a suit can be lightly thrown out or a defence struck out, without adequate reasons. An order under Order 11, Rule 21 CPC should not be passed unless the court is satisfied that answer to interrogatories was not being deliberately supplied or document being withheld which ought to have been discovered for a fair and just adjudication of the dispute before it. Senior Counsel submitted that in the instant case neither of the two situations obtain. There was no order by the court earlier passed requiring the question to interrogatories addressed to defendant being supplied or any specific document being required to be discovered. He submitted that aside of aforesaid, with the amended written statement on record of the trial court and the factum of transfer of suit land having been cancelled, in the circumstances of intervening litigation on record, the trial court could not have struck off the defence of the defendants. 7. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that approaching the courts with clean hands both for the plaintiff and the defendant is a central to administration of justice. He has submitted that courts would become dysfunctional if they are denied the power to discipline truant litigation's. In the context of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff for obtaining a full, complete and executable decree intended to implead the "subsequent purchasers", and therefore required better particulars with regard to their name and address particularly in the context of plea/ defence taken by the defendants in the first instance in their written statement. Counsel submitted that better particulars not having been supplied, and the defendant thus obstructing trial and administration of justice through duly constituted courts of law, the trial court was empowered to exercise its discretion to strike off the defence of the defendant. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. Official Assignee of Madras [AIR 1930 Madras 473]. In the said case in-spite of directions of the court for supplying better particulars under Order 6, Rule 5 CPC, the said directions not having been complied with owing to the obduracy and obstructive tactics by the defendants, the trial court had proceeded to exercise its powers under Order 11, Rule 21 CPC and strike out the defence of the defendants. Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter and in the context of the conduct of the defendant in the suit before the trial court taking vague pleas in the first instance with regard to sale of the suit land and subsequently supplying incomplete information in spite of directions of the court with the intent to obstruct a fair and expeditious disposal of the suit, nothing erroneous, arbitrary, or unjust can be attributed to the impugned order dated 3-6-2006. Counsel has submitted that evasive and unfair tactics of the defendant in the suit before the trial court was evidenced by contrary pleas, i.e. originally that land had been sold to subsequent purchasers and then in the amended written statement, following the amended plaint having been filed, stating (and changing the plea without permission of the court) that suit property had not been sold. This was indicative of mala-fides of the defendant. This court should not come to the defendant's aid, in the facts of the case by interfering with the impugned order dated 3-6-2006. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. It is no doubt true that both the plaintiff and defendant must come with clean hands before the court. This is not just a nice thought but an indispensable requirement for expeditious disposal of litigation pending before different courts. Be that as it may, striking off defence is a serious consequence in a suit. Consequently such a situation could obtain only in the event procedure therefor as detailed in law is religiously adhered to. This is not just a nice thought but an indispensable requirement for expeditious disposal of litigation pending before different courts. Be that as it may, striking off defence is a serious consequence in a suit. Consequently such a situation could obtain only in the event procedure therefor as detailed in law is religiously adhered to. As per law, Order 11, Rule 21 CPC can be invoked in circumstances where interrogatories are made to one party by the other with permission of the court or discovery of a document directed in accordance with the provisions Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 CPC. Only then provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 CPC consequent to obduracy and persistent obstinacy for striking off the defence of a defendant could be invoked. However, in the instant case from the facts on record it transpires that neither interrogatories were required from the defendant nor any discovery of document was sought. What was sought was better particulars with reference to provisions of law i.e. Order 6, Rule 5 CPC, not actually in the operation at the relevant time having been deleted by the amendment of 1999 to the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was indeed captioned as one under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC, but the contents thereof did not relate to the provisions of Order 11 CPC. Learned trial court however in its wisdom directed the defendants to supply better particulars apparently by resort to its inherent powers. The defendant should have cooperated or suffered adverse inference. But in my considered opinion resort to Order 11, Rule 21 CPC without due notice to the defendant at the time of making directions for supply of better particulars on 19-2-2002 was not warranted. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 3-6-2006 striking off defence of the defendants deserves to be set aside. 11. However this court cannot overlook the shenanigans of the defendants, their evasive and contrary stands before the trial court. The trial court shall be free to consider the validity of defence/ plea of the defendants in their amended written statement in contradiction with the earlier stand taken taken in the original written statement. For the present the order dated 3-6-2002 striking off defence of the defendants under Order 11, Rule 21 CPC is set aside with costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the defendant. 12. For the present the order dated 3-6-2002 striking off defence of the defendants under Order 11, Rule 21 CPC is set aside with costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the defendant. 12. Payments of costs as directed shall be a precondition of this order being operative. If costs are not paid within four weeks from today, under receipt by the plaintiff or deposited before the trial court, this order shall be liable recalled on appropriate application made. On costs being deposited with the trial court, the amount be disbursed to the plaintiff. 13. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.Appeal Allowed. *******