ORDER A.N. Dikshita, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-2-1989 passed by Sri V.K. Verma, Xth Additional District Judge, Bareilly allowing the application filed under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree and restoring the case to its original number but imposing, condition that the application is allowed on payment of Rs. 1,00/- as costs and further the applicants were directed to deposit the entire decretal amount in the Court by 31-3-1989. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants Sri K. N. Tripathi has submitted that the imposition of this condition is too onerous and very harsh. Reliance has been placed in support of this submission in the case of Raj Kumar Soni v. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., AIR 1979 All 370 . The learned counsel for the opposite parties Sri Navin Sinha has very strenuously submitted that the revision itself is not maintainable. It is very difficult to agree with this submission. Sri Navin Sinha has further submitted that the suit is pending since the year 1983 and the applicants are adopting dilatory tacties to stall the proceedings of the suit. 4. The instant case has a very chequered history. On 20th of October, 1983 a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed by the opposite parties which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 1983. Service could be effected on the applicants after a lapse of two years i.e. on 23-8-1985. Time to file written statement was granted on more than one occasion. On 14-1-1986 as no written statement was filed, the case is directed to be listed on 4-3-1986 for hearing. On 4-3-86 again none appeared for the defendants and 17-4-1986 was fixed for ex parte hearing of the case. On 17-4-1986 immediately after the orders were passed, the learned counsel for the applicants (defendants) appeared and filed two applications one for recalling the ex parte order and the other for the direction to the plaintiffs to furnish better particulars. Both the applications were rejected on the same day and the suit was decreed ex parte. On 1- 7-86 an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for setting aside the ex parte judgment and order decreeing the suit. Both the applications were rejected on the same day and the suit was decreed ex parte. On 1- 7-86 an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for setting aside the ex parte judgment and order decreeing the suit. The application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. On 20th of March, 1987 the application filed by the applicants under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed in default. However,on 29-5-1987 the order dismissing the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was recalled and the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was directed to be listed for hearing on merits. On 20th of August, 1987 the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed after hearing the parties on merits. 5. Aggrieved the applicants filed a civil revision on 11-9-1987 in this Court. On the stay application the following interim order was granted :- "The ejectment of the applicants shall remain stayed from the premises in dispute till 12-10-1987 subject to the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall deposit the entire decretal amount including damage at the rate awarded until the month of September, 1987 by 15-10-87. Any amount which may have already been deposited will be taken into account for the purpose of compliance of this condition. (iii) The applicants shall go on depositing future damages starting from the month of October, 1987 by the 15th October, 1987 by the 15th of the next month. (iii) The decree holder will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited. (iv) In case of default of any of the conditions laid down in this order, the same shall stand vacated automatically. Sd/ V.K.K. 11-9-1987" 6. The revision was disposed of on merits on 11-1-88. The revision was allowed. This Court directed the Court below to dispose of the application filed by the applicants under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Misc. case No. 21 of 1986) on merits. The application was again dismissed in default on 19-12-1988. Again an application for recall of this order dismissing the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 8-1-1989. On this application the impugned order was passed. 7. case No. 21 of 1986) on merits. The application was again dismissed in default on 19-12-1988. Again an application for recall of this order dismissing the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 8-1-1989. On this application the impugned order was passed. 7. From the above recital it is manifest that the applicants who are trying to preserve the tenancy are adopting dilatory tactics. But in spite of the fact that the applicants are knowingly or unknowingly stalling the proceedings of the case, the Court below having found sufficient reason recalled its order on more than one occasion. It was not expedient to impose such a condition regarding deposit of the entire decretal amount as it was apparently onerous. No doubt it was within his jurisdiction to impose such a condition, while invoking inherent powers under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the interest of justice do not require that such a condition may be imposed which otherwise may be onerous to the extent of not being complied with. It has been submitted by Sri K. N. Tripathi that the Court below erred while exercising its jurisdiction in imposing such a condition. The entire decretal amount is about Rs. 7,000/-. This ex parte decree was passed in year 1986. It has been pointed out that even after 17-4-1986 when the ex parte decree was passed, the applicants have not paid or deposited in the Court below a single cell. It thus reflects on the conduct of the applicants, but still it has to be seen whether the condition as imposed was in the interest of justice. 8. Now the only question which calls for consideration is whether such a condition as imposed by the Court below calls for an interference. Looking to the facts of the case I might not have been impressed by the submission made on behalf of the applicants, but in the interest of justice it is imperative that an opportunity is afforded to the applicant to participate in the proceeding for a speedy disposal of the case. The Court below was satisfied that sufficient cause was shown. The Court below was satisfied that sufficient cause was shown. It would have been appropriate that the application, looking to the facts of the case, would have been allowed on payment of exemplary costs, but a direction to the applicants to deposit the entire decretal amount appears to be incomprehensible, Moreover the applicants would have to furnish security as enjoined under S. 17 of the Small Causes Court Act. The learned counsel for the applicants Sri K. N. Tripathi has submitted that the applicants are prepared to pay one fourth of the decretal amount within the time allowed by this Court. 9. In view of this statement and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be in the interest of justice that the applicants are permitted to deposit this amount. 10. In view of the above this revision deserves to succeed and the order of the Court below imposing a condition also deserves to be set aside. 11. In the result the revision is hereby allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. positively by 31st of August, 1989. No adjournment shall be allowed on any a ground whatsoever. The applicants are directed to deposit the amount of costs (Rs. 100/-) and 2,000/- being a part of the decretal amount by 15th of August 1989. In the event of non- deposit of the amount of costs of Rs. 100/- and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- the revision shall stand dismissed. Both the parties may appear before the Court below on 21-8-1989 when the application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be disposed of on any subsequent date but not beyond 31st of August, 1989. 12. A copy of this order shall be made available to the learned counsel for the applicants on the payment of usual charges.