P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri N. Sree Rama mitrthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Parabrahma Sastry, the learned counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against an order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, ponnur, dated 11-4-2001 made in LA. No. 220 of 2001 in O. S. No. 96 of 1997. ( 3 ) THE above I. A. No. 220 of 2001 was filed by the revision petitioner-defendant under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Civil procedure Code praying to set aside the ex parte order passed against him in o. S. No. 96 of 1997 on 13-2-2001. The application was allowed; however, directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of rs. 27,384/- even after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,800/- from the principal amount of rs. 31,184/- and on such depositing of amount by 25-4-2001 only, lest the said application shall stand dismissed. Aggrieved by the imposition of such condition while allowing an application to set aside the ex parte order, the revision petitioner-defendant had preferred the present civil revision petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner had contended that the Court below had made the impugned order mainly taking into consideration the past conduct, i. e. , the revision petitioner was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 23-3-1998 and LA. No. 402 of 1998 was filed to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed. Learned Counsel also had contended that while allowing an application to set aside the ex parte decree or ex parte order, imposition of such onerous conditions cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel also had placed reliance on the decision in g. P. Srivastava v. R. K. Raizada, 2000 (4) ald 54 (SC), to the effect that the defendant in such a case cannot be penalized for his previous negligence, which had been, in fact, overlooked and condoned earlier. Learned Counsel also had placed reliance on the decision in Garuda Sakuntala v. A. V. M. Jagga Rao (died) by LRs. , 2000 (6) ald 634 . Learned Counsel also had placed reliance on the decision in Garuda Sakuntala v. A. V. M. Jagga Rao (died) by LRs. , 2000 (6) ald 634 . ( 5 ) SRI V. Parabrahma Sastry, the learned Counsel representing the respondent, had submitted that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matters of this nature and the Court below after considering all the facts and circumstances had exercised its discretion and had imposed certain terms, which are reasonable and the imposition of these terms is not only based on past conduct, but also on other relevant circumstances. Learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraph 2 of the impugned order, wherein it was observed: "the petitioner admitted in his written statement that he purchased the fertilizers and pesticides from the plaintiffs shop on credit basis and he disputed only the interest. Further, the petitioner/defendant contended that he paid the amount of Rs,13,800/~ to the respondent/plaintiff. Even this payment is also disputed by the learned respondent s counsel during enquiry. " the learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously contended placing reliance on these observations that the Court below is justified in making such an order in the light of the stand taken by the revision petitioner-defendant in the main suit. ( 6 ) IT may be that an admission is made by the revision petitioner-defendant relating to the part of the claim. The Civil procedure Code itself contemplates the passing of a decree to that extent, which is not in dispute. Be that as it may, here the Court is concerned only with an application to set aside the ex parte order and, no doubt, contentions had been advanced by both the Counsel about the merits and demerits of the main suit, which may have to be decided only in the main suit and not at this stage. Be that as it may, here the Court is concerned only with an application to set aside the ex parte order and, no doubt, contentions had been advanced by both the Counsel about the merits and demerits of the main suit, which may have to be decided only in the main suit and not at this stage. However, taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration and also in view of the conduct of the revision petitioner-defendant and in the interests of justice, the impugned order is modified as follows: the revision petitioner-defendant shall deposit l/4th (one fourth) of the suit claim to the credit of O. S. No. 96 of 1997 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; in default, the impugned order of the Court below stands. ( 7 ) THE civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. ( 8 ) IT is also brought to my notice that the matter involves money claim and the suit is sufficiently an old one. Hence, it is hereby directed that the Court below shall dispose of the suit, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.