THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. No. 4306 OF 2008 Date: 13.10.2009 Kalabarigi Gopala Krishna. Petitioner/Defendant-1. And Boddepalli Raju and another. … Respondent/Defendant –2. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. No. 4306 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I.A. No. 405 of 2008 in O.S. No. 269 of 2007 dated 06.09.2008. I.A. No.405 of 2008 was an application filed, under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C, to set aside the ex parte decree dated 18.04.2008. In its order dated 06.09.2008 the Court below noted that on 03.12.2007, when the matter was posted for filing of written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, there was no representation, that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were called absent and the matter was proceeded with ex parte, that on 11.12.2007 the ex parte decree was set aside and again the petitioner- defendant did not get ready even after the chief affidavit of P.W-1 was filed and time was granted to the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine him on three different occasions. The Court below observed that the suit was posted for trial on 02.08.2008 after setting aside the ex parte decree passed earlier against the petitioner-defendant, that from 08.04.2008 the matter underwent adjournments the last of which was on 18.04.2008 when the petitioner-defendant No.1 was called absent and set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. While taking into consideration these circumstances, the Court below, while observing that the petitioner deserved to be given an opportunity to contest the matter, set aside the ex parte decree dated 18.04.2008 on deposit of costs awarded in the decree. Aggrieved by the order of the Court below to the extent the petitioner was directed to deposit costs awarded in decree dated 18.04.2008, the present writ petition is filed. Sri T. Rajasekhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the costs awarded in the decree dated 18.04.2008 for Rs.8,689/- was extremely high and that this Court, while granting interim stay in the present revision, had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,000/- which order the petitioner had complied with. Learned Counsel would rely on G.L. Vijain v. K. Shankar[1] and Vijay Kumar Madan v. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society[2]. In G.L. Vijain, the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, while admitting the revision petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposited 50% of the entire arrears by calculating the monthly rent, was justified or not. It is in this context that the Supreme Court, while observing that the revisional Court had incidental powers to pass orders imposing conditions, held that while exercising jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 7 the Court could impose conditions with regards payment of costs and it could exercise larger jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in the sense that it could impose other conditions also. In Vijay Kumar Madan, costs was imposed for Rs.50,000/-. The Supreme Court held that, while exercising powers of putting the defendant on terms, the Court could not pass orders which would have the effect of placing the defendant in a situation worse off than what he would have been in if he had not applied under Rule 7 and that the purpose of Rule 7 was to ensure the orderly conduct of the proceedings by penalizing improper dilatoriness calculated merely to prolong the litigation. In the present case, the costs of Rs.8,689/- was imposed as the petitioner was set ex parte earlier and at his request the ex parte order was set aside. As the petitioner was set ex parte for a second time costs of Rs.8,689/- was imposed. Such imposition cannot be said to be either confiscatory or so unduly harsh as to necessitate interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well to remember that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over the discretion exercised by the trial Court and it is only when the order of the Court below results in manifest injustice would this Court interfere. Since the petitioner has already deposited Rs.3,000/-, the said amount may be transferred to the credit of the suit. The petitioner shall pay the balance costs of Rs.5,689/- in two monthly instalments to the credit of the suit and, on payment of the said amount, the total costs of Rs.8,689/- shall be paid to the respondent herein and the ex parte decree shall stand set aside. Failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the aforementioned costs on or before 30.11.2009 shall result in confirmation of the order of the Court below. The C.R.P. is, accordingly, disposed of. In the circumstances without costs. 13.10.2009 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] 2007(1) SCJ 346 [2] (2002) 5 SCC 30