JANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order of the learned Extra assistant Judge, Junagadh in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 10 of 1989 directing the applicants to deposit the entire decretal amount before a particular date, as a pre-condition for condoning the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. ( 2 ) THE opponent-Hindocha Engineering Company filed Regular Civil suit No. 526 of 1983 against the applicants for recovering the price of goods sold and delivered to the applicants-defendants. As the applicants- junagadh. defendants failed to present the written statement even after being served with summons and after getting adjournments from time to time, the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J. D.), Junagadh pronounced the judgment and passed the decree against them on 19-11-1988. The applicants challenged this decree by filing an appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but as there was a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal, they submitted Civil miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 1989 for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh after hearing the respective Advocates, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. He, therefore, allowed the application for condonation of delay, but imposed the following conditions. The operative portion imposing a condition to deposit the decretal amount. within a specific time period. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Judge reads as under :"the present application is hereby allowed and delay of 13 days is condoned, with a condition that the applicants shall deposit the decretal amount in the court on or before 18/03/1989 and till then the execution of the decree passed by the learned trial Judge be stayed. If the applicants will not make deposit of the decretal amount on or before 18/03/1989, in the Court, this application will stand as rejected. Appeal to be registered after depositing the decretal amount accordingly. " ( 3 ) THIS order was passed on 18/02/1989. If the applicants will not make deposit of the decretal amount on or before 18/03/1989, in the Court, this application will stand as rejected. Appeal to be registered after depositing the decretal amount accordingly. " ( 3 ) THIS order was passed on 18/02/1989. On 18-3-1989 the applicants submitted another application for stay of execution under Order xli Rule 5 (3) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the applicants who were agriculturists were not in a position to deposit the decretal amount because of famine and that the decretal amount can be secured by calling upon the judgment-debtor to furnish the security as required under sub-rule 3 (c) of Rule 5 of Order XLI. This application was also rejected. ( 4 ) THE applicants, therefore, approached this Court under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Revision Application was admitted on 21-4-1989 and the operation of the order passed by the learned Extra assistant Judge imposing condition to pay the decretal amount was stayed in the following terms :"rule returnable on 3/07/1989. By way of ad interim relief the operation and implementation of the following portion of the judgment and order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Miscellaneous Civil Application No 10 of 1989 is stayed: with a condition that the applicants shall deposit the decretal amount in the Court on or before 18/03/1989 and till then the execution of the decree passed by the learned trial Judge be stayed. If the applicants will not make deposit of the decretal amount on or before 18/03/1989 in the Court. this application will stand as rejected. Appeal be registered after depositir, the decretal amount accordingly. It is clarified that it will be open to the learned Extra Assistant Judge to proceed further with the appeal. In case the petitioner herein-original judgment-debtor files an application for stay of the execution of the decree passed by the trial court in regular Civil Suit No. 526 of 1983, the same shall be decided on merits in accordance with law without in any manner being influenced by this order. " ( 5 ) THE opponent though served has not appeared and it appears that the opponent is not interested in contesting the revisional proceeding. " ( 5 ) THE opponent though served has not appeared and it appears that the opponent is not interested in contesting the revisional proceeding. ( 6 ) IT also appears that the order passed by the learned single Judge at the time of admitting the Revision Application takes care of all the contingencies. Rule 3a of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for condonation of delay on an application being made by the appellant. It does not provide that the application can be granted only if the appellant deposits the entire decretal amount. At the stage of condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Rule 3a, the only aspect to be considered by the learned Judge would be as to whether there is sufficient cause or not for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Of course, if the court finds that there was some negligence on the part of the appellant, it can impose a reasonable condition, but not such a condition which would prevent the appellant from having an opportunity to challenge the decree passed against him. It is only when the appeal is admitted after condonation of delay that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 (3) and Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. Order XLI Rule 1 (3) provides that the appellant shall deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof within such time as the appellate Court may allow. Rule 5 (1) provides that the appellate Court may stay an execution of any decree for sufficient cause and for determining sufficient cause, the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 are to be taken into consideration. It appears that the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh applied all the provisions relating to stay of execution at the time of considering the application for condonation of delay and by doing so, he prevented the appellants from agitating their case on merits before the appellate forum because of their inability to deposit the amount. The impugned order therefore, suffers from jurisdictional error. ( 7 ) EVEN then it is not necessary to decide the Revision Application finally on merits in view of the order passed by the learned single Judge at the time of admission of the Revision Application on 21-4-1989 which serves the ends of justice. The impugned order therefore, suffers from jurisdictional error. ( 7 ) EVEN then it is not necessary to decide the Revision Application finally on merits in view of the order passed by the learned single Judge at the time of admission of the Revision Application on 21-4-1989 which serves the ends of justice. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants is not in a position to state whether the learned Extra Assistant Judge has proceeded to hear the appeal or whether the original judgment -debtors have filed any application for stay of execution of the decree. Be that as it may. The lower appellate Court will decide the application for stay if any, submitted by the applicants on merits and impose such condition as it may think proper under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If such an application has already been decided, the lower appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal itself as early as possible. In any case, the application for stay of execution if submitted on behalf of the applicants and not decided so far, will be heard with all expedition and decided before 30/04/1994. It is made clear that there is no stay granted by this Court against execution of the decree. ( 8 ) THE Revision Application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute without entering into the merits of the case, with the aforesaid direction. Writ to go forthwith. As the opponent-Company has not appeared though served, there will be no order as to costs of this Revision application. .