IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1820/2006 Oriental Mail Speed Tgransport Service Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. 20.5.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Manish Sharma, for the appellants. Ms. Raj Sharma, for the respondent. This misc. appeal is against the order dated 30.1.2006 whereby the application filed by the defendant appellant under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. has been dismissed. The suit was filed by the respondent Insurance Company against the defendant appellant claiming the amount of Rs.2,42,382/- which the company had paid on account of the alleged theft of the truck owned by the defendant appellant with the goods of the defendant respondent No.2. The details are not necessary for the disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that once earlier also the suit proceeded exparte in the year 1993 but on the application having been filed the exparte order was set aside on 24.11.1993 thereafter again the suit was ordered to proceed exparte and the decree was passed against the defendant appellant on 2.11.1996. It is for setting aside the aforesaid exparte decree that the present petition under order 9 rule 13 CPC was filed by the defendant appellant which has been dismissed by the learned trial court by the impugned order. During the course of hearing of this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant appellant did not appear on account of the information not having been furnished of the date fixed by the counsel for the defendant. It is however submitted that the appellant may be put on terms and the defendant be allowed to contest the suit on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the conduct of the appellant has been such that no leniency is required to be shown and the fact that the advocate did not give the requisite information is not a sufficient cause looking the facts and circumstances of the present case as already the appellant was negligent once earlier, and the defendant only wants to avoid the decree. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the present case I am not inclined to go into the respective merits of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties as I am of the view that suits must as far as possible be decided on merits. However, I am of the view that in the interest of justice it is directed that in case the appellant deposits with the learned trial court 1/4th of the decreetal amount as it existed on 31.5.2008 and furnishes a solvent security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court within two months from today the exparte decree passed by the learned trial court dated 2.11.1996 shall stand set aside permitting the defendant appellant to proceed in the suit from the stage on which the suit was on the date when the exparte order was passed. It is however made clear that in case the said amount is not deposited within a period of two months from today and the solvent security for the balance amount as ordered above is not given by the appellant before the learned trial court this order allowing the application under order 9 rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree being conditional shall stand revoke automatically and the plaintiff would be entitled to proceed with the execution of the decree dated 2.11.1996. In case the amount of 1/4th of the decreetal amount is deposited with the learned trial court the learned trial court would be free to disburse the same to the plaintiff respondent after taking solvent security for the restitution of the same in case the suit fails. This misc. appeal is disposed of as above. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS