JUDGMENT : In response to the notice issued by this Court on 20-06-2016 none appeared for the respondent/defendant and therefore, this Court issued notice for final disposal on 24-10-2016. The matter was placed before the Court on 19-12-2016 with the office note that notice of respondent was not served. On 19-12-2016 this Court directed fresh notice of final disposal to the respondent. Though the respondent is served, there is no appearance on his behalf. Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The original plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the trial Court on application filed by him praying that the defence of defendant be struck off for not complying with the order passed by the trial Court on application (Exhibit No.30) on 27-11-2015. By the impugned order, the trial Court granted a week's time to the defendant to comply with the order passed on 27-11-2015 and deposit the arrears of rent, failing which it is directed that the defence of the defendant can be struck off. 4. The plaintiff had filed an application (Exhibit No.30) under Order XVA of the Code of Civil Procedure on which the trial Court passed order on 27-11-2015 directing the defendant to deposit Rs.72,000/towards rent for the period from September 2012 to August 2015, within one month. As this order was not complied, the plaintiff filed an application on 22-01-2016 praying that defence of the defendant be struck off for not complying with the order passed on 27-11-2015. After the plaintiff filed the application praying that defence of the defendant be struck off, the defendant filed an application (Exhibit No.35) on 16-02-2016 praying that three weeks' time be granted to comply with the order passed on 27-11-2015. This application (Exhibit No.35) was rejected by the trial Court on 16-02-2016. The defendant filed an application (Exhibit No.37) on 22-02-2016 seeking permission to deposit Rs.84,000/. This application came to be rejected by the order passed on 29-02-2016. The order passed on the application (Exhibit No.37) was challenged by the defendant before this Court in Writ Petition No.2337/2016. By the judgment delivered on 21-04-2016, Writ Petition No.2337/2016 came to be dismissed. After dismissal of the writ petition, the defendant filed reply dated 07-06-2016 to the application filed by the plaintiff praying that defence of defendant be struck off. The order passed on the application (Exhibit No.37) was challenged by the defendant before this Court in Writ Petition No.2337/2016. By the judgment delivered on 21-04-2016, Writ Petition No.2337/2016 came to be dismissed. After dismissal of the writ petition, the defendant filed reply dated 07-06-2016 to the application filed by the plaintiff praying that defence of defendant be struck off. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has granted a week's time to the defendant to deposit the amount. 5. After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and examining the documents placed on record of the petition, I find that the learned trial Judge has committed patent illegality by giving a complete gobye to the orders passed by him on application (Exhibit No.35) and on application (Exhibit No.37) and the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2337/2016. The learned trial Judge has committed an error of jurisdiction by granting a week's time to the defendant to deposit the amount overlooking the fact that the earlier order passed by him on the application (Exhibit No.37) refusing to grant permission to deposit the amount is maintained by this Court. After this Court maintained the order passed by the trial Court on the application (Exhibit No.37), it was not open for the trial Court to grant time to the defendant to deposit the amount. 6. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to condone the lapse, however, it can be only on satisfaction of the Court that the party committing default or contravention or breach makes amends. However, in the present case, the trial Court has not applied its mind to the relevant facts and has not recorded its satisfaction as required by the above provision. Moreover, in view of the orders passed earlier by the trial Court and in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2337/2016, the trial Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and is required to be set aside. 7. There is one more aspect which is required to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and is required to be set aside. 7. There is one more aspect which is required to be taken into consideration. The learned Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that though the defendant has deposited Rs.84,000/which was the amount due towards arrears of rent till March 2016 as stated in the application (Exhibit No.37) filed by the defendant, the defendant has not paid or deposited any amount for the rent from April 2016. 8. In view of the above, the following order is passed : (i) The impugned order is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the plaintiff praying that the defence of the defendant be struck off is allowed in terms of the prayer made in the application. Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.