Judgment :- (Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 11 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.04.2005 made in Application No.3765 of 2004 in C.S.No.1314 of 1995.) P. Sathasivam, J. The above original side appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.04.2005 made in Application No.3765 of 2004 in C.S. No.1314 of 1995, in and by which the learned Judge set aside the ex parte decree dated 20.04.2004 passed in C.S.No.1314 of 1995 on deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of said suit on or before 30.06.2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the contesting respondents 3 to 6. 3. It is seen that an ex parte decree was passed on 20.04.2004, to set aside the same and to restore the suit on file, the defendants 3 to 6/respondents 3 to 6 herein filed an application in Application No.3765 of 2004. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application it is stated that initially the suit was dismissed for default on 27.03.2001, and thereafter, the said suit was restored on 24.01.2002. While so, he was informed by the 6th respondent about the news item in "Daily Thanthi" dated 26.07.2004, stating that this Court decreed the suit for damages filed by Nandagopal Chetty and defendants 3 to 6 were directed to pay a sum of Rs.2.25 crores to the plaintiff. It is further stated that on hearing the same, he verified the Court records and came to know that the suit was listed for trial on 20.04.2004, ex parte evidence was taken and ex parte decree was passed on the same day itself and thereafter, he took steps to file an application to set aside the ex parte decree. It is also stated since he came to know the ex parte decree only on 26.07.2004, he filed the application on 27.07.2004 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 20.04.2004. 4. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing counter affidavit disputing the claim made by the contesting defendants. 5. It is also stated since he came to know the ex parte decree only on 26.07.2004, he filed the application on 27.07.2004 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 20.04.2004. 4. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing counter affidavit disputing the claim made by the contesting defendants. 5. The learned Judge, after accepting the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that some more time was required for resolving the matter and even after setting aside the ex parte decree, the parties could very well make an endeavour to settle the matter, as well as taking note of the fact that the suit has been pending for long time and for reporting settlement the matter was adjourned for several hearings and keeping in mind the judgement relied on by the learned counsel, viz., V.K. Industries and others vs. M.P. Electricity Board, Rampur, Jabalpur [ 2002 (3) SCC 159 ], set aside the ex parte decree dated 20.04.2004, with a direction to the applicants to deposit Rs.25,000/- on or before 30.06.2005 to the credit of C.S.No.1314 of 1995. 6. Mr. A. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff by drawing our attention to the suit claim, pendency of the suit for several years and the admission of claim made by the defendants submitted that the learned Judge is not justified in ordering deposit of a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- and in other words, the learned Judge ought to have imposed a condition directing to deposit a sizeable amount towards the suit claim. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ramasubramnaiam, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents pointed out that in view of the fact that the matter was adjourned on several occasions for resolving the dispute amicably and in the light of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, as well as taking note of the fact that even after setting aside the ex parte decree it would be possible for the parties to settle the issue, the learned Judge by exercising discretion, imposed a reasonable condition, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. We have verified the records. The suit was instituted in the year 1995. 8. We have verified the records. The suit was instituted in the year 1995. Though it is stated that there was a delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, only after condoning the delay, the order has been passed setting aside the ex parte decree, and hence we are now concerned with the reasons assigned for setting aside the ex parte decree. In the earlier part of our judgement, we have referred to the stand taken by the contesting respondents. Further, a reading of paragraph 6 of the order of the learned Judge amply shows that the matter was adjourned on several occasions on the undertaking that the matter would be settled amicably. In such a circumstance, the learned Judge after satisfying herself that even after setting aside the ex parte decree, the parties can very well resolve the issue by settling the matter, ordered the application by directing the applicants therein to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- on or before 30.06.2005. Mr. Ramasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents also informed this Court that the said conditional order has been duly complied with. Inasmuch as the learned Judge has exercised her discretion after accepting the submission made on behalf of the applicants, we are of the view that there is no valid ground warranting interference with the said order. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.