P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. V. Simhadri, counsel representing the appellant and Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, counsel representing the respondent. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 18-7-2002 made in I. A. No. 8 of 2002 in O. S. No. 144 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. The said application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C. P. C. , to set aside the ex parte decree dated 28-6-2001. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet had dismissed the said application with costs by an order dated 18-7-2002 and aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. Sri K. V. Simhadri, learned counsel representing the appellant had made the following submissions: The learned counsel at the out set had brought to my notice that in C. M. P. No. 2452 of 2002 in C. M. A. No. 3715 of 2002 on 30-1-2003, this Court granted interim stay on condition of the petitioner depositing suit costs within a period of two weeks and the said order was duly complied with. The learned counsel further submitted that the absence of appellant is bonafide on the date when the matter was posted on 21-6-2001 and also immediately thereafter the matter was posted for ex parte evidence on 28-6-2001 and on both the dates the appellant was suffering with fever and cold. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet had unfortunately penalized the appellant for his previous negligence. The learned counsel also contended that having permitted the appellant to file the written statement on 28-6-2002 so also payment of costs to the respondent s counsel, the dismissal of the application on unsustainable grounds cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to an order of this Court made in C. R. P. No. 2697 of 2002 dated 25-6-2002. The learned counsel also had taken me through the impugned order meticulously and had submitted that in the light of the convincing explanation given the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet should have given an opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter and should have decided the matter on merits. The learned counsel also had taken me through the impugned order meticulously and had submitted that in the light of the convincing explanation given the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet should have given an opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter and should have decided the matter on merits. ( 2 ) SRI Sudarshan Reddy, the counsel representing the respondents had explained the past conduct of the respondent in detail and had contended that deliberately and wilfully the appellant had been preventing the Court from passing a decree. The learned counsel also submitted that it is gross abuse of process of Court. The learned counsel also pointed out that this is a simple suit for recovery of money and the appellant had been adopting delaying tactics only with a view to harass and cause loss to the respondent. While concluding, the learned counsel also submitted that in the event of this Court proposing to give an opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter, it is just and necessary that a direction be issued to the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet to dispose of the suit forthwith at the earliest possible time. Heard both the counsel. As already stated supra, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience) aggrieved by the dismissal of an application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code to set aside the ex parte decree dated 28-6-2001 made in O. S. No. 144 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. The application filed by the appellant I. A. No. 8 of 2002 in O. S. No. 144 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, was allowed directing the appellant herein petitioner-defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being the half of the principle amount by 28-6-2002 failing which the petition stands dismissed. The application filed by the appellant I. A. No. 8 of 2002 in O. S. No. 144 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, was allowed directing the appellant herein petitioner-defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being the half of the principle amount by 28-6-2002 failing which the petition stands dismissed. ( 3 ) EVIDENTLY aggrieved by the condition imposed, the appellant herein preferred C. R. P. No. 2697 of 2002 to revise the said order dated 13-6-2002 made in I. A. No. 8 of 2002 in o. S. No. 144 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet and this Court by an order dated 25-6-2002 disposed of the C. R. P. which reads as hereunder: "the defendant in O. S. No. 144 of 2000 which is pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, is the petitioner herein. The respondent-plaintiff had filed O. S. No. 144 of 2000. It was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree by filing I. A. No. 8 of 2002. While allowing the said I. A. , the learned Judge directed that the defendant-petitioner should deposit a sum ofrs. 25,000/-, being the half of the principal amount, by 28-6-2002, failing which the petition stands dismissed. The order passed by the learned Judge is totally erroneous. The learned Judge ought to have seen whether there were reasonable grounds for the defendant-petitioner herein to remain absent on the day of the effectual hearing. If he is satisfied on that ground, then only he has to allow the application. Therefore, the order ini. A. No. 8 of 2002 dt. 13-6-2002 is set aside and the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet is directed to decide I. A. No. 8 of 2002 on its merits. On 28-6-2002 the petitioner herein is directed to file his written statement. This order is passed under Order VIII Rule 10 C. P. C. The C. R. P. is disposed of accordingly. " As can be seen from the said order, on 28-6-2002 the appellant-petitioner is directed to file the written statement. It is brought to my notice that the written statement was filed. This order is passed under Order VIII Rule 10 C. P. C. The C. R. P. is disposed of accordingly. " As can be seen from the said order, on 28-6-2002 the appellant-petitioner is directed to file the written statement. It is brought to my notice that the written statement was filed. However, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet had dismissed the application I. A. No. 8 of 2002 in O. S. No. 144 of 2000 by order dated 18-7-2002 observing that there is no satisfactory cause which prevented the appellant to attend the Court on the date of the ex parte decree and on the said ground the application was dismissed with costs. ( 4 ) THE appellant had explained that he fell sick on 19-6-2001 with fever and cold and he suffered from fever, cold and body pains till 2-11-2001 and hence, he could not attend the Court on 28-6-2001. The said application was opposed by the respondent denying ill-health of the appellant and it was also averred that the said cause was created only for the purpose of filing this application. It was further stated that the appellant as petitioner-defendant took several adjournments for filing of written statement and the said application was filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet had recorded certain reasons at para No. 4 of the impugned order in the present C. M. A. The past conduct of the appellant in deliberately avoiding to file written statement had been commented in detail. It is needless to say that while making the prior conditional order the same factual position was in existence and application was allowed on condition of deposit of some amount, which was questioned in C. R. P. No. 2697 of 2002 and the same was not referred to at all by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. It is also yet another surprise to note that in pursuance of the direction in C. R. P. No. 2697 of 2002, the written statement filed by the appellant was received. It is also yet another surprise to note that in pursuance of the direction in C. R. P. No. 2697 of 2002, the written statement filed by the appellant was received. It is needless to say that while deciding an application to set aside ex parte decree, the sufficiency of cause which prevented the party from attending the Court on the particular day alone to be considered, and as can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet was more guided away by the past conduct of the party. It is essential to note that the said conduct was taken into consideration while making the prior conditional order, which was the subject matter in C. R. P. No. 2697 of 2002. Hence, in the light of the order passed in C. R. P. No. 2697 of 2002, I am of the considered view that the impugned order has no legs to stand and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also pertinent to note that this Court had granted interim stay in the present C. M. A. in C. M. P. No. 24529 of 2002 on condition of the petitioner depositing the suit costs within a period of two weeks which had been complied with. Hence, viewed from any angle, the appellant herein, the petitioner-defendant has to be given an opportunity to contest the suit by allowing the appeal. It is no doubt true that the suit is a simple money suit. In view of the fact that written statement already had been filed ( 5 ) THERE may not be any impediment to dispose of the suit at an early date. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit at the earliest point of time preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.