JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. These proceedings have been instituted by Gajraj Singh Saxena Trust and its four Trustees-landlord impeaching the order dated 28.07.2007, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow whereby the application moved by the petitioners-landlord (C-19) under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC for striking off defence of the defendant for failure to deposit the admitted, rent has been rejected. 2. The said order dated 28.07.2007 passed by the learned trial court was challenged by the petitioners by filing SCC Revision No. 64 of 2007, which too, has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow by means of order dated 23.01.2008. It is this order dated 23.01.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow which is also under challenge in these proceedings. The petitioners, after dismissal of the revision petition by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow by means of order dated 23.01.2008, moved another application (C-45) for allowing the application (C-19), which too, was rejected by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow by means of order dated 24.10.2008. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the said order dated 24.10.208 has also been dismissed by the revisional court by means of its order dated 17.12.2008. The orders dated 24.10.208 and 17.12.2008, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and revisional court are also under challenge in these proceedings. 3. The facts of the case, which give rise to the present proceedings, are that Late. Gajraj Singh Saxena formed a trust of his properties and executed a trust deed on 23.11.1906 which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Lucknow on 26.11.1906. It has been averred by the petitioners that last managing trustee of the said trust, which is situated at 58/35, Husaingani, Lucknow was Babu Shyam Manohar Lal Nigam who died on 06.12.1978 and since then the office of trustees was vacant. On 23.03.1990, on an application for appointment of new trustees, the learned Additional District Judge appointed the petitioners as trustees by means of order dated 29.03.2006. 4. A notice is said to have been sent to the respondent No.4 stating therein that petitioners have been appointed as new trustees and that respondent No.4 is a tenant of the trust property consisting of two rooms set on the ground floor measuring 450 sq. ft. on monthly rent of Rs. 4. A notice is said to have been sent to the respondent No.4 stating therein that petitioners have been appointed as new trustees and that respondent No.4 is a tenant of the trust property consisting of two rooms set on the ground floor measuring 450 sq. ft. on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and that rent is due to him from 01.11.1979 to 31.03.2006, amounting to Rs. 65,800/- along with water tax and sewerage tax of the same period. The said notice is dated 06.04.2006. It has been averred by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 refused to take notice sent to him by speed post and same was returned back to the petitioners by the postal department. Since the respondent No.4 failed to pay the arrears of rent, water tax and sewerage tax within one month from the date of refusal of the notice as such tenancy of respondent No.4 was terminated after expiry of the notice period of 30 days. Since the respondent No.4 is said to have committed default in making payment of rent and other dues, a suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages was filed by the petitioners against respondent No.4 along with a prayer under Order 33 Rule 1, CPC seeking permission of the court to sue as an indigent person. The said prayer/application was presented on 04.07.2006 and was registered as Misc. Case No. 68-C of 2006. The petitioner was examined to record his oral evidence on 04.07.2006 in respect of prayer for seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. On 11.07.2006, a notice dated 10.07.2006 was served on respondent No.4 fixing 15.07.2006. It has further been averred that neither on 15.07.2006 nor on 22.07.2006, respondent No.4 paid the rent to the petitioners nor deposited the same in the court. On 06.10.2006, respondent No.4 filed an objection against the petition/prayer moved by the petitioners under Order 33 Rule 1, CPC, however, no oral or documentary evidence was led by the respondent No.4. The learned trial court on analysis of evidence and material available on record passed an order on 18.11.2006 whereby permission/leave to the petitioner to sue as an indigent person was granted and Misc. Case No. 68-C of 2006 was registered as SCC Suit No. 126 of 2006. The next date in the case was fixed on 09.01.2007. 5. The learned trial court on analysis of evidence and material available on record passed an order on 18.11.2006 whereby permission/leave to the petitioner to sue as an indigent person was granted and Misc. Case No. 68-C of 2006 was registered as SCC Suit No. 126 of 2006. The next date in the case was fixed on 09.01.2007. 5. On 15.01.2007, the petitioners moved an application (C-19) under Order 15 Rule 5, CPC read with Section 35B of CPC praying therein that defence of respondent No.4 be ordered to be struck off. In the said application, it was stated that on 18.11.2006, the learned trial court had allowed the application under Order 33 Rule 1, CPC and case was thereafter registered as Regular Suit fixing 09.01.2007 for filing written statement and further that on 09.01.2007, the defendant moved an application seeking adjournment which was allowed on cost of Rs. 50/- fixing 15.02.2007 as the date for final hearing. It was also averred that the respondent No.4 did not file any application seeking extension of time to deposit the amount due against him and since he has not deposited the rent on or before the first date of hearing as such defence is liable to be struck off. It was also stated that any failure in depositing the cost will also dis-entitle the respondent No.4 to contest the proceedings of the suit any further. 6. The aforesaid application moved by the petitioners under Order 15 Rule 5, CPC was contested by the respondent No.4 who filed his objection/reply under Order 15 Rule 5(2) of the CPC and also written statement on 04.04.2007. Thereafter on 21.05.2007, the respondent No.4 filed tender for depositing the rent for the period from March, 2006 to April, 2007 and again on 23.05.2007, respondent No.4 submitted tender for depositing the rent for the period from May, 2007 to December, 2007. The said deposits were accepted by the court on 24.05.2007 at the risk of the respondent No.4. The learned trial court thereafter proceeded to consider the application moved by the petitioners under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC and rejected the same by means of order dated 28.07.2007. 7. The said deposits were accepted by the court on 24.05.2007 at the risk of the respondent No.4. The learned trial court thereafter proceeded to consider the application moved by the petitioners under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC and rejected the same by means of order dated 28.07.2007. 7. The reasons indicated in the said order dated 28.07.2007 are that in another SCC Suit i.e. SCC Suit No. 127 of 2006, the application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC has been rejected and since the facts and circumstances of the case were akin to those of SCC Suit No. 127 of 2006 as such it will not be appropriate to exercise discretion while considering the application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. It was also stated that respondent No.4-defendant by moving application(C-25) has deposited the admitted amount as such the plea of striking off the defence of the defendant is not acceptable. 8. The petitioners, challenging the said order dated 28.07.2007, filed a revision petition, which too, has been dismissed by the revisional court on 23.01.2008. Thereafter, another application (C-45) was moved by the petitioners for allowing the application(C-19), which too, was rejected by the learned trial court on 24.10.2008. The revision petition preferred against the said order dated 24.10.2008 has also been dismissed by the revisional court on 27.12.2008. 9. On a careful consideration and analysis of pleadings and the material available on record and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent No.4, what arises for consideration in this case is as to whether on the first date of hearing, the defendant-respondent No.4 failed to deposit the entire amount admitted by him together with interest thereon and as to whether throughout continuance of the proceedings of the suit, respondent No.4 regularly continued to deposit the monthly rent. 10. Order 15 Rule 5, CPC makes a provision that in case of non-compliance of the provisions thereof, the court may, subject to provision of Sub-Rule (2) of Order 15 Rule 5, strike off the defence of the defendant. Order 15 Rule 5(2) provides that before making an order for striking off defence, the court may consider any representation which may be made by the defendant. 11. Order 15 Rule 5(2) provides that before making an order for striking off defence, the court may consider any representation which may be made by the defendant. 11. Real appreciation of the expression "first hearing" occurring in Order 15 Rule 5 has been subject matter of debate in various cases. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Rishi Ram and others, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 641 has observed that the first date of hearing would not change on every adjournment of the suit for final disposal. It would mean the first date when court proposes to apply its mind to pinpoint the controversy in the case and such stage can only arise after the defendant has been given an opportunity to file his written statement. It has further been held by Hon'be Supreme Court that it is the intention of the court to apply its mind on a certain date which is significant for identifying the date of first hearing. Thus, the first date of hearing will depend on the overall facts and circumstances of the case and it may even differ from case to case. 12. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, the suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages was presented on 04.07.2006 along with prayer under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC for grant of leave of the court to sue as an indigent person. The learned trial court by means of order dated 18.11.2006 accorded its permission to the petitioners to sue as an indigent person and registered the suit as SCC Suit No. 126 of 2006 and thereafter, fixed 09.01.2007 as the next date. It is noteworthy that respondent No.4 has all along participated in the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 68-C which was registered on the petition/prayer of the petitioners for grant of leave to sue as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC. Respondent No.4 has stated that rent of the premises was Rs. 3/- per month and that he had been paying the rent to one Sri Kuldeep Kumar Nigam till January, 2007. The rent as claimed by the petitioner was denied and accordingly, permission was sought to deposit the rent by the respondent No.4 for the month of March, 2006 till April, 2007 at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month. 13. 3/- per month and that he had been paying the rent to one Sri Kuldeep Kumar Nigam till January, 2007. The rent as claimed by the petitioner was denied and accordingly, permission was sought to deposit the rent by the respondent No.4 for the month of March, 2006 till April, 2007 at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month. 13. While allowing the prayer made by the petitioner under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC, on 18.11.2006, the next date was fixed on 09.01.2007 on which date respondent No.4 sought adjournment and again on 15.02.2007, the respondent No.4 sought further adjournment. On 15.02.2007 the court granted last opportunity to file written statement fixing 04.04.2007 and also directed the respondent to deposit the cost. On 21.05.2007, tender for depositing of rent submitted by the respondent No.4 was accepted relating to rent from March, 2006 to April, 2007. On 21.05.2007 itself the cost was also imposed. 14. The proceedings of 15.02.2007 drawn by and before the learned trial court are relevant. On the said date, respondent No.4 had moved an application seeking adjournment. The said adjournment was allowed on a cost and the court further fixed the date on 04.04.2007 providing further in the order that in case cost is not deposited then no further adjournment shall be granted. The learned trial court while allowing the application moved under order 33 Rule 1, CPC on 18.11.2006 had fixed 09.01.2007 for filing of the written statement by the respondent No.4. Since in the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 68-C of 2006, the respondent No. 4 had been participating all along, as such he was well aware of the next date fixed i.e. 09.01.2007 for filing of the written statement. On 09.01.2007, an adjournment application was moved by the respondent No.4 which was objected to by the petitioners-plaintiffs stating therein that the respondent No.4 has not complied with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, however, the case was adjourned to 15.02.2007. On 15.02.2007 again adjournment was sought by the respondent No.4. 15. On 09.01.2007, an adjournment application was moved by the respondent No.4 which was objected to by the petitioners-plaintiffs stating therein that the respondent No.4 has not complied with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, however, the case was adjourned to 15.02.2007. On 15.02.2007 again adjournment was sought by the respondent No.4. 15. On examining of the chronological events relating to the proceedings before the learned trial court below, I have no hesitation to hold that while allowing the application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC, on 18.02.2006, learned trial court had fixed the date as 09.01.2007 for filing of the written statement, that too, in the presence of respondent No.4, thus, it can safely be inferred that on the next date fixed i.e. on 09.01.2007, the learned trial court intended or proposed to apply its mind to the controversy involved in the suit. As has been held by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and others (supra), it is the intention of the court to apply its mind on a certain date which is significant for identifying the date of first hearing. 16. In the instant case, it is not that 09.01.2007 was fixed in the case for the first time. The said date was fixed for filing written statement, however, registration of the SCC Suit No. 126 had preceded by the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 68-C of 2006 which pertained to proceedings of the prayer/petition made by the petitioners under Order 33 Rule 1, CPC seeking leave of the court to sue as an indigent person. 17. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, what this court infers that the learned trial court had fixed 09.01.207 for filing written statement by the respondent No.4 and in fact had proposed on this very date to apply its mind to the controversy in the suit. There is a strong and cogent reason for arriving at such an inference and the reason is that before 18.11.2006 when leave to sue as an indigent person was granted and the SCC Suit No. 126 of 2006 was registered, the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 68-C had taken place in which respondent No.4 had also participated all through. There is a strong and cogent reason for arriving at such an inference and the reason is that before 18.11.2006 when leave to sue as an indigent person was granted and the SCC Suit No. 126 of 2006 was registered, the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 68-C had taken place in which respondent No.4 had also participated all through. Accordingly I am persuaded to hold that the first date of hearing, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be 09.01.2007 on which date respondent No.4 failed to comply with the requirement of the Order15 Rule 5, CPC. The learned trial court has, thus, failed to consider the entire matter in its true legal perspective. 18. The revisional court has also not taken into account the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 19. Retultantly, the petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. 20. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.07.2007 and 23.01.2008, passed by the learned trial court and the revisional court respectively are quashed. The order dated 24.10.2008, passed by the learned trial court and the order dated 17.12.2008, passed by the revisional court are also quashed. 21. The matter is remitted to the learned trial court for decision on the application C-19 moved by the petitioners under Order 15 Rule 5, CPC, afresh. The said application shall be decided expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 22. Let the record of learned court below be remitted. 23. Parties to bear their own costs.