IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :3257 OF 2010 DATED:3.9.2010 Between: Chandrakanth Pawar. .....PETITIONER AND Dr.Y.Praveen Kumar .....RESPONDENT This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :3257 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.2010 in I.A.No:508 of 2009 in O.S.No:257 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. I.A.508 of 2009 filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated 5.6.2009 was allowed subject to the condition of payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- and 1/4th of the suit amount on or before 27.7.2010, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. Having aggrieved by the imposition of condition of payment of 1/4th of the suit amount, the present revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner-defendant was out of State he has no knowledge about the filing of the suit and therefore, he could not attend before the Court on the day on which the case was called and consequently, the Court below had passed the exparte decree on 5.6.2009. It is further submitted that seeking to set aside the exparte decree, the petitioner filed I.A.508 of 2009 and the said I.A was allowed subject to the condition of paying costs of Rs.1,000/- towards costs besides depositing of ¼ of the suit amount on or before 27.7.2010. It is further submitted that the very plea of the petitioner-defendant is that the suit document, on which basis the suit is filed, is a forged one and in such an event, there was no justification on the part of the Court below in imposing the condition of depositing 1/4th of suit amount and therefore, the said condition is onerous. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court reported in SHAIK AHMED MOHAMMAD V. M/S DAMODARDAS HARIDAS & SONS ([1]) wherein it was observed thus: “The Civil Miscellabeous Appeal is partly allowed modifying the order under challenge to the extent that the condition imposed relating to the deposit of the 1/4th of the decretal amount on or before 6.2.2009 is hereby set aside and in as much as the conditional order made by this Court had been complied with an the costs had been deposited as already referred to supra, the respondent/plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Since the application for setting aside the exparte decree, dated 18.8.2008, is allowed the parties are at liberty to participate in the further proceedings and in as much the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff pleaded urgency, let the learned Judge dispose of the suit itself at an early date, preferably, with a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit basing on a pronote executed by the defendant in his favour and having received the summons, the petitioner-defendant failed to attend the Court below and therefore, an exparte decree was passed on 5.6.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner-defendant filed an application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C seeking to set aside the exparte decree and the Court below while imposing costs of Rs.1,000/- and directing to deposit 1/4th of the suit amount, allowed the said I.A and in pursuance of the same, though the costs of Rs.1,000/- were paid but the 1/4th of the suit amount has not been deposited. It is further submitted that not only the petitioner-defendant was set exparte, but also an exparte decree was also passed and the present application is filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings. The material on record goes to show that the suit in O.S.257 of 2008 is based on a pronote and the Court below passed an exparte decree on 5.6.2009 and seeking to set aside the same, the petitioner- defendant has filed I.A.508 of 2009 along with the written statement taking the plea of denial of receipt of the suit amount and the said I.A was allowed by the Court below by imposing a condition to pay a costs of Rs.1,000/- and deposit 1/4th of the suit amount. In this regard, it is to be noted that the petitioner-defendant had complied with the order of the Court below partly by depositing costs of Rs.1,000/-, which have already been withdrawn by the respondent-plaintiff. No doubt, the Court below has got the power of imposing any reasonable condition including deposit of the suit amount. But, the same shall be imposed subject to the circumstances wherein it is warranted. In the judgment of this Court (citation supra), in a situation where the application is filed under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C seeking to set aside the exparte order, this Court observed that there is no hard and fast rule with regard to the imposition of any conditions. But in a situation where the condition needs to be imposed, the Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the bonafides on the part of the petitioner. Now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, admittedly, it is a suit for recovery of certain amount and the said suit is decreed exparte and in that, the present application is filed seeking to set aside the same. The said application is allowed on a condition of depositing of costs of Rs.1,000/- and also 1/4th of suit amount. In this regard, it is to be noted that the petitioner has complied with order partly by depositing Rs.1,000/- towards costs. But, it is his contention that in a case of this nature and in the light of denial of receipt of any suit amount in his written statement, the stipulation of condition to deposit 1/4th of the suit amount, is nothing but onerous. The material on record goes to show that the application seeking to set aside the exparte order, is filed within the time. In view of this and in view of compliance of the order of the Court below partly, it can be said that there are bonafides on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court seeking to set aside the exparte order. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the plea of denial of the petitioner as to the receipt of suit amount in his written statement, I am of the view that the imposition of condition to deposit 1/4th of the suit amount, does not appear to be just and proper and therefore, the said condition is liable to set aside. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the condition to deposit 1/4th of the suit amount. Both the learned counsel submitted that they will cooperate with the Court in prosecuting the matter and therefore, the matter may be directed to be disposed of at an early date. Since the matter pertains to the year 2008 and the same is for recovery of the amount basing on a pronote , I feel it just and proper to direct the Court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:3.9.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3257 of 2010 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2010 [1] 2009(6) ALT 378