ORDER 1. Petitioner had executed certain works as awarded to him by the respondent and in respect of said works had an outstanding claim of a little over Rs. 8 lacs. 2. Petitioner could not receive the money from the respondent society: Interest started accumulating. A suit for recovery was filed. The suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner. 3. An application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC was filed. This said application was allowed vide order dated 8.8.2006. 4. A two-fold grievance has been urged. Firstly, no sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance entitling the defendant to have the ex parte decree set aside. Secondly, no terms have been put upon the society to protect the interest of the plaintiff. 5. Notwithstanding the first ground urged in the grounds of appeal, at the hearing today, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions to press the petition only on the second count provided directions are issued to the learned trial Judge to expedite disposal of the suit. 6. It is not in dispute that interim orders were passed in the suit requiring the society to retain physical possession of 6 flats which could be made available for satisfaction of the decree. It is also not in dispute that the administrator of the society has since handed over possession of the 6 flats to 6 individuals. 7. Thus, as of today, no flat is available with the respondent which could be attached and sold in execution of a decree, if one is obtained by the petitioner. 8. I am of the opinion that terms ought to have been imposed upon the society while granting relief to the society by recalling the ex parte decree. 9. Needless to state, the respondent society would have to raise funds from its members to satisfy the decree. There are numerous execution petitions languishing in this Court where the co-operative society is unable to pay the debt inasmuch as the members do not contribute to the corpus of the society; more often than not, the flats have repeatedly changed hands. 10. To safeguard the interest of the petitioner, I modify the impugned order dated 8.6.2006 and dipose of the petition directing that within 60 days from today the respondent would furnish a bank guarantee in sum of Rs. 10. To safeguard the interest of the petitioner, I modify the impugned order dated 8.6.2006 and dipose of the petition directing that within 60 days from today the respondent would furnish a bank guarantee in sum of Rs. 30 lacs in favour of the petitioner, the bank guarantee would be to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. The term of the bank guarantee would be that in case plaintiff succeeds in the suit and obtains a decree, the bank would honour the decree, subject to cost of the decree attaining finality. I note that with interest, if suit were to be decreed today amount payable would be Rs. 40 lacs. 11. I further direct the learned trial Judge to expedite the disposal of the suit for the reason the suit was filed way back in the year 1995. 12. Day-to-day trial would be held and judgment would be pronounced latest by 20.12.2007. 13. No costs. 14. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. Ordered accordingly.