THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2850 of 2009 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 18.03.2009, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, allowing the application in I.A. No. 1161 of 2007 in O.S. No. 763 of 2003, filed by the respondent-defendant praying to condone the delay of 104 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 12.07.2004 passed in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the Court below having found that the respondent-defendant has not filed any material to show that either the petitioner or his family member fell ill, ought not have allowed the present application filed by the respondent-defendant seeking to condone the delay of 104 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree on the technical ground that the decree was not passed on merit and that substantial issue is involved in the suit, which is for recovery of money. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent-defendant supported the impugned order, and contended that since the respondent- defendant and his family members were ill, he could not pursue the suit, and considering this, the Court below has allowed the present application praying to condone the delay of 104 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree, and no interference is called therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the affidavit filed by the respondent-defendant in support of the condone delay petition. The respondent-defendant except making bald statement that because of his ill-health and his family members, he could not pursue the case and that non-pursuing of the case is neither willful nor wanton, has not filed any material to show that himself and his family members were really ill. The Court below, just based on this reasoning given by the respondent- defendant, allowed the present application, and in the absence of any material filed by the respondent-defendant, justifying his non-pursing of the case, the Court below ought not to have allowed the present application. Though this Court, not satisfied with the manner in which, the Court below allowed the present application, though it expedient to set aside the same. But at this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that since the suit was decreed for non-prosecution and was not decreed on merit, he submitted that the present application be allowed subject to the condition of the respondent-defendant depositing half of the decretal amount. In view of the above stand taken by the counsel for the respondent-defendant, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the C.R.P. with the following directions: The present application, which is allowed by the Court below, shall stand allowed subject to the condition of the respondent- defendant depositing half of the decretal amount within a period of six weeks, and in default, the order under revision stands vacated. Accordingly, the C.R.P. stands disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: 23rd September, 2009 KSR