PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSH, PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. We do not think it would serve any further purpose to keep this matter alive at this stage since the matter is only on the ground that the order which has been passed by the Hon'ble First Court allowing the application filed by the appellant/ petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 recalling the decree made under Order 12 rule 6. ( 2 ) IT is true that the appellant did not appear when the matter was taken, up by the Hon'ble First Court and as such an exparte order/decree was passed. However, that facts need not be gone into at this stage since, the application was allowed filed by the appellant/petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 with a condition imposed on the appellant/petitioner by the Hon'ble First Court that the applicant should secure a sum of Rs. 37 lacs either in the form of bank guarantee or in cash within a period of 12 weeks from date and if such security is furnished, then the order passed by the Hon'ble First Court would stand recalled and further it appears that the said order was passed allowing the said application imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant/petitioner. ( 3 ) MR. Ghosh appeared on behalf of the appellant/petitioner and drew our attention to Order 9 Rule 13 as well as Order 9 Rule 7. ( 4 ) HE submits that the decree was passed for the said sum of Rs. 37 lacs against the appellant/petitioner. In one hand the Hon'ble First Court has recalled the said decree but on condition to furnish the said decretal dues being a sum of rs. 37 lacs. He submitted if there is no such decree is passed against the appellant/petitioner there is no reason to ask to secure the claim either by way of a bank guarantee or in cash with the Registrar O. S which would show that it is nothing but a condition imposing upon the appellant/petitioner which would prejudice the petitioner and that too by way of a decree already passed in the said application. It is nothing but an attachment before a decree, although no case has been made out to that extent. It is nothing but an attachment before a decree, although no case has been made out to that extent. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the parties it appears to us and we know that if a decree is passed and an appeal is preferred from the said decree the Court has power to direct the judgment-debtor to secure the decree but when a decree is being recalled it is unthinkable that the similar type of order should be passed directing the appellant/petitioner to secure the decree by way of furnishing bank guarantee for the same amount and even in cash to secure the claim and thereafter imposing cost to Rs. 10,000/ -. We cannot appreciate this sort of stand taken by the Hon'ble First Court. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 empowers a person who has suffered by a decree passed exparte to apply before the Court for recalling of the said decree. It is unthinkable that the Court recalls such an order on one hand and give further direction to the appellant/petitioner on the other hand to furnish security and that too for the same amount. This practice cannot be appreciated before a decree is passed, it is executed. It appears to us that it is nothing but a sugar coating quinine given to the litigant. A litigant is always in the hand of the learned lawyer by whom they are advised to proceed in the matter. ( 6 ) IT is also stated before us that the appellant/petitioner was advised by the lawyers not to appear before this Court without service of writ of summons. Admittedly, no writ of summons even today has been served upon the appellant/ petitioner excepting that under the Original Side Rules of this Court notice of motion was taken out in respect of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code and that notice has been served upon the appellant/petitioner. Therefore, there may be misunderstanding by the said litigant on the basis of the advice given by his learned Advocate and thereby prevented by a sufficient cause to appear before the Court when the matter was called on for passing the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. Therefore, there may be misunderstanding by the said litigant on the basis of the advice given by his learned Advocate and thereby prevented by a sufficient cause to appear before the Court when the matter was called on for passing the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. When we look into the matter from that angle we feel that the order so passed by the Hon'ble First Court directing to secure claim of the respondent for the same amount, being the order so passed by Court, being a sum of Rs. 37 lacs, we feel that order cannot be sustainable in law. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, we set aside the said order to that extent by which it was directed the appellant/petitioner to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 37 lacs by way of bank guarantee or in cash in favour of the Registrar O. S. Further it appears that the Hon'bie First Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,0007- In our opinion the said amount is exorbitant and we reduce the said amount to Rs. 5,000/- as it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in air 2002 SC 2982. Mr. Ghosh also relied upon another decision of the Apex court reported in 2000 (3) SCC 54 . We also express our same view in the similar manner as has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and we pass this order. ( 8 ) IN view of that we do not feel that any further order should be passed on this application or it would be proper for us to keep the appeal alive Accordingly, both the appeal and the application are disposed of on the above terms. ( 9 ) IN view of the above order the appellant/petitioner shall be at liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition in the said application within 2 weeks after vacation and reply if any, is to be filed within one week thereafter and the matter is adjourned for 3 weeks after vacation. The Hon'ble First Court Shall hear out the matter afresh. ( 10 ) ALL parties, are to act on a xerox, signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Appeal and application disposed of.