THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.4399 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 06.08.2009, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1343 of 2009 in O.S.No.343 of 2007. In spite of service of notice and printing its name in the cause list, none appeared for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,238/- and the petitioner-defendant filed written statement. Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of PW.1 was filed and the matter was coming up for the cross-examination of PW.1. At that stage, the suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 05.03.2009. Therefore, the petitioner claims to have filed the present application, being I.A.No.1343 of 2009, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 25 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court, through the impugned order, dated 06.08.2009, allowed the application, which reads as under: “No representation for the petitioner. Perused the petition. The petition is allowed subject to deposit of OS ½ decretal amounts and costs. For compliance call on 07.09.2009.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have considered the matter on merits, instead of passing such a conditional order. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Polasani Sucharitha v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., Mukarampura, Karimnagar, and others[1]. I n Polasani Sucharitha’s case (supra), while dealing with similar issue, a Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that imposition of conditions for depositing costs/part or whole of suit amount as a condition precedent for entertaining an application to set aside the ex-parte decree even before going into merits, is not permissible. In view of the principle laid down in Polasani Sucharitha’s case, the impugned order passed by the trial Court imposing condition is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside and the trial Court is directed to consider the application i.e., I.A.No.1343 of 2009, on merits. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:09.02.2010 VGB [1] 2007 (5) ALD 293 (DB)