C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER under Section 5 of the limitation Act to condone the delay of 67 days in filing the petition under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge by the order under revision, holding that as petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not maintainable, petition to condone delay in filing such a petition also is not maintainable. ( 2 ) REVISION petitioners having put their appearance in the suit took time for filing their written statements, and since they failed t6 file their written statements in spite of several adjournments being granted to them on imposition of costs the trial Court passed decree against them on 9-5-1997. Revision Petitioners filed a petition under rule 13 of Order 9 CPC to set aside the said decree, with the present petition to condone the delay of 67 days under Section 5 of limitation Act. The Court below holding that as the decree was passed for the revision petitioners not filing written statements, the same is covered by Rule 5 of order VIII CPC and relying on Satya narayan Sah vs. Brij Gopal Mundra1 and The traders Bank Ltd. vs. Avtar Singh2 held that such decree cannot be said to be an ex parte decree, and so the petition under Order IX rule 13 CPC is not maintainable and consequently dismissed the petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act by the order under revision. ( 3 ) PLACING strong reliance on n. Jayaraman vs. M/s. Glaxi Laboratories India ltd. 3, M/s. Kuvarp Industries, Bangalore vs. State Bank of Mysore4 and M/s. M. Manik peter vs. K. Surendranathan5 Ms. Jyothi eswar, appearing on behalf of the Revision petitioners contended that decree passed against the defendants for their not filing written statement does not cease to be an ex parte decree, and for setting aside such decree petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable. She contended that as petitioners have established sufficient grounds, for condoning the delay that occurred in filing the petition under order IX Rule 13 CPC the delay of 67 days may be condoned. ( 4 ) IN Satyanarayana Shah case (supra) the defendant after putting in appearance did not file written statement though several adjournments were granted. Therefore, the Court passed a decree. ( 4 ) IN Satyanarayana Shah case (supra) the defendant after putting in appearance did not file written statement though several adjournments were granted. Therefore, the Court passed a decree. When a petition under Rule 13 of Order 9 CPC to set aside the said decree was filed it was held that since the Court passed the decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, it cannot be said to be an ex parte decree, and so petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not maintainable. In Traders Bank Ltd. , case (supra) it was held that when a decree is passed under Rule 5 of Order VIII CPC against the defendant who appears but fails or neglects to file written statemen within the time granted by the Court, such decree cannot be said to be an ex parte decree and the same cannot be set aside under Order IX rule 13 CPC. Both the said decisions were considered by a Division Bench of Kerala high Court in M/s. M. Manick Peter s case (supra ). The said Division Bench after referring to Jaya Raman s case (supra) and m/s. Kuvarp Industries case (supra) decided by Madras and Karnataka High courts, held that in a case where the defendant appears and fails to file written statement and if a decree is passed on the ground of the failure of the defendant to file his written statement, such decree does not cease to be an ex parte decree. The learned judges for holding so have taken into consideration the amendment made to rules 5 and 10 of Order VIII CPC by 1977 amendment to CPC as per Act 104 of 1976, and also the fact that earlier to the said amendment order passed under Rule 10 of order VIII was appealable as per subclause (b) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII, and the fact that by Act 104 of 1976 an order passed under Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC being equated to a decree by introducing amendment to Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC. In Kuvarp Industries case (supra) the learned Judge, after considering the provisions before and after amendment to cpc the that even after amendment to CPC a decree passed for defendant not filing written statement does not cease to be an ex parte decree within the meaning of Order IX rule 1-3 CPC. In Kuvarp Industries case (supra) the learned Judge, after considering the provisions before and after amendment to cpc the that even after amendment to CPC a decree passed for defendant not filing written statement does not cease to be an ex parte decree within the meaning of Order IX rule 1-3 CPC. I am in agreement with the views expressed in the above Judgments of madras, Karnataka and Kerala High Courts. ( 5 ) IN view thereof, I am not able to agree with the finding in Satyanarayana Sah case (supra) and Traders Bank Limited case (supra) relied on by the Court below, that a decree passed for the defendant not filing written statement would not be an ex parte decree, and so a petition under Order 9 rule 13 CPC is not maintainable, and hold that a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is maintainable even in case where a decree is passed for the defendant not filing his written statement, under Rule 10 of order VIII CPC. ( 6 ) I am not going into the question whether the revision petitioners have made out a ground for their non-appearance on the date when the ex parte decree was passed against them. Since, the petition out of which this revision arises is to condone the delay that occurred in filing the petition under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC, for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I am of the opinion that the delay can be condoned on condition of the petitioner paying rs. 1,000/- to the respondent, or depositing into the Court the said amount within a period of one month from to-day. In the event of the petitioners failing to pay or deposit the amount of Rs. 1,000. 00 as ordered within one month from to-day, the revision stands dismissed. ( 7 ) THE C. R. P. is accordingly allowed.