Judgment :- Revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.193 of 1989 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. They filed I.A 9 of 1990 under O.IX rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the decree passed against them. The Sub Judge allowed the petition on deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- in court towards the decree amount on or before 14-9-1990. 2. Contention of the revision petitioners is that the aforesaid condition is extremely onerous and harsh and it would amount to stifling their defence in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below was well within its jurisdiction to pass the order and merely because the aforesaid amount was ordered to be deposited towards the decree amount it cannot be held that it suffers from any infirmity. 3. Order IX Rule 13 enables the Court to set aside ex parte decree. The order provides that in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against the defendant it is open to the defendant to make an application to the Court which passed the decree to set aside the order if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. The Court is given power to set aside the decree upon such terms as to payment of costs in the Court or otherwise as it thinks fit. In view of the above specific provision it cannot be held that the Court is powerless to give a direction to deposit the decree amount in part or full before an ex parte decree is set aside. Order IX Rule 13 bestows the discretion to the Court to set aside the decree, on imposing terms and conditions. The words "upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit" give ample latitude to the court while setting aside the ex parte decree. 4. The contention of the revision petitioners that the Court can only award costs and has no power to direct deposit of the decree amount either in part or in full while allowing petition under Order IX Rule 13 is not tenable as the Order does not in any way abridge the powers of the Court in the imposition of costs only. The words "upon such terms as to" in the Rules cannot be confined to costs only as the Rule enables the Court to order "payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit". Thus the Rule is comprehensive enough to include conditions as to payment into Court of the decree amount or such other conditions as the Court considers proper. Surayya v. Thayaramma (AIR 1950 Madras 618) is an authority for the above view. Direction of the Sub Judge to deposit a portion of the decree debt cannot be held to be beyond his powers or without jurisdiction. 5. Counsel submitted that at any rate the impugned order is very oppressive and onerous and the revision petitioners are not in a position to fulfil the condition and to get the benefit of having a fair trial on merit. He submitted that there was no intentional laches or wilful delay in filing the written statement and actually the revision petitioners had filed LA. 4132 of 1989 stating that they wanted to peruse 70 and odd documents produced by the respondent before filing the written statement and that petition was rejected by the Court below. It is also pointed out that the entire debt is secured by equitable mortgage and therefore there cannot be any apprehension on the part of the respondent that it would not be possible to reap the fruits of the decree. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case I find that the order of the Sub Judge requiring the revision petitioners to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- towards the decree debt calls for modification. LA. 4132 of 1989 shall stand allowed on condition of the revision petitioners paying or depositing Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the respondent on or before 30-10-1990. The C.R.P. is allowed as stated above with no order as to costs.