Govind Mathur, J.—To get the ex-parte decree set aside, the defendant preferred a petition under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court by its order dt. 04.12.2006 accepted the petition and set aside the ex-parte decree dt. 02.09.2006 subject to the condition that the defendant shall furnish bank guarantee upto 03.01.2007 for the decreetal amount i.e. of Rs.84,320/-. 2. The appellant defendant is aggrieved with the order aforesaid to the extent it imposes condition for furnishing bank guarantee. 3. To challenge the term settled for setting aside the ex-parte decree the two limbs of the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant are :- (1) no term could have been settled by the Court while accepting an application preferred under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure; and (2)even if the Court was possessing power to impose any terms while setting aside ex-parte decree, then too the terms imposed should be reasonable, whereas in the present case that is quite onerous. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and also examined the order impugned. 5. I do not find any merit in first contention of counsel for the appellant on the count that the ex-parte decree dt. 02.09.2006 was passed by the trial Court in a suit preferred as per the provisions of Order XXXVII Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 4 of Order XXXVII in quite unambiguous terms prescribe that after decree the Court may under special circumstances, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit. 6. In the present matter the Court, as a matter of fact, was exercising powers as per the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, thus, was having ample power to settle terms while setting aside the decree. 7. No dispute can be made with the contention that the terms imposed while setting aside an ex-parte decree should be fair and reasonable. In the instant matter the trial Court after accepting the position that non-appearance of the defendant or his counsel was bona fide imposed a condition to furnish bank guarantee relating to entire decreetal amount. 7. No dispute can be made with the contention that the terms imposed while setting aside an ex-parte decree should be fair and reasonable. In the instant matter the trial Court after accepting the position that non-appearance of the defendant or his counsel was bona fide imposed a condition to furnish bank guarantee relating to entire decreetal amount. The furnishment of bank guarantee is as good as advancement of cash. The condition imposed in present set of circumstances appears to be quite onerous. The rights of the plaintiff could have been well protected even by seeking solvent security from the defendant for the decreetal amount. 8. Looking to whatever stated above, it would be just and appropriate to modify the term to furnish a bank guarantee for the decreetal amount by directing the appellant defendant to furnish solvent security for the decreetal amount within a month from today. The impugned order shall remain undisturbed in all other respects. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. * * * * *