JUDGMENT This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 447 of 1991 as both these cases are between the same parties, arising out of similar orders passed in execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 19-B/88. The applicant has challenged the orders passed by the lower Court on its application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte decree as well as the execution proceedings putting conditions on the applicant to deposit the amount of the exparte decree before proceeding under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C.. The executing Court before proceeding on the application of the applicant under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside exparte decree had put a condition precedent to deposit the decretal amount first, but it was also ordered that the same will not be paid to the Decree- Holder. The present revision petitions which are against those orders passed by the lower Court, were admitted by this Court on 27.9.1991 and the operation of the impugned orders was stayed, which order was subsequently confirmed on 8.5.1992. Counsel are heard on merits. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Government of India undertaking. There can be no apprehension in the mind of the non- applicant that the amount is not secured. He further submits that though the order is dated 31. 7.1991 but the lower Court has not proceeded to record any evidence on its application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. though there was no such stay from this Court. By this time the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. could have been disposed of. Learned counsel for the non-applicant does not deny this position but submits that the applicant should furnish security for payment of the decretal amount, in case their application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. is rejected. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the lower Court should expedite the proceedings and recording of evidence under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. day to day without any further delay. The proceedings should be concluded within a period of three months. In case the application of the applicant under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. is rejected, then only the applicant be directed to furnish security for payment of the decretal amount. The proceedings should be concluded within a period of three months. In case the application of the applicant under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. is rejected, then only the applicant be directed to furnish security for payment of the decretal amount. With the above observations, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.