HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4744 OF 2009 DATE:19-02-2010 BETWEEN: Shaik Babyjohn Beebi & Another. …Petitioners AND Lanka Adinarayana …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4744 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed by the defendants against the orders of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, dated 8.10.2009 to the extent of certain condition imposed while allowing I.A.No.123 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 2008 filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit and to restore the suit to its file. The respondent herein instituted the above suit for recovery of money basing upon a registered mortgage deed alleged to have been executed by the defendants-petitioners herein on 28.2.2007. However, an ex parte decree was passed on 25.11.2008 against the petitioners herein. For setting aside the ex parte decree, the impugned I.A. came to be filed along with the written statement contending that the Court below passed the ex parte decree on 25.11.2008 and by the said date, as the first petitioner was infected with viral fever she was bedridden and could not attend her advocate’s office, and that her son-second defendant (second petitioner herein) was out of town on his business and therefore, they could not attend the Court on the said date and the said absence is neither willful nor wanton. By the impugned order, the lower Court allowed the I.A. on condition of petitioners depositing half of the decretal amount. It is that condition which has been challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. As can be seen from the written statement filed by the petitioners, it is their case that the registered mortgage deed was a rank forgery and that they never executed the same and that the plaintiff-respondent has no capacity to lend such an amount. Since the very execution of the suit mortgage deed is denied by the petitioners on which basis the decree was passed, the lower Court rightly allowed the I.A. but in the circumstances of the case, ought not to have imposed such a harsh condition. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, dated 9.10.2009, it is represented that the petitioners have deposited the entire suit costs. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is set aside to the extent it directs the petitioners to deposit half of the decretal amount. The respondent-plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the suit costs so deposited by the petitioners herein. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 19, 2010 Tsr.