Judgment :- (1). This appeal is directed against an Order dated 25th September, 2007 passed by the Honble First Court whereby it appears that the applicants moved an application for restoration of an award which was dismissed for default and a decree was passed in terms of the award. The applicants took out two applications, one for recalling the order of dismissal of the setting aside application and the other for setting aside the ex parte decree. (2). The restoration application was dismissed for default on 19th July, 2007. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the restoration application and the Honble First Court, by an order dated 10th September, 2007, was pleased to direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore within fortnight from the date to consider the matter thereafter. (3). It is also to be mentioned that the award and the decree in terms thereof is of Rs. 3.5 crores, since the applicant did not deposit the said amount as mentioned, the Honble First Court came to the conclusion that where there has been a gross negligence on the part of the applicants, it would be improper to restore the applicants application for restoration of the setting aside application. Hence this appeal has been filed from the said application. (4). The facts revealed from the instant case that 12 tippers were let out by Ashok Leyland to Everest Coal on hire under four several hire purchase agreements entered on 30th June, 1993. In terms of the agreement, the payment to be made by the appellant, Everest Coal to the respondent, Ashok Leyland. The said hire purchase also contained four arbitration agreements between the parties. (5). It also appears from the fact that disputes and differences arose between the parties and an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the said Everest Coal for referring the disputes between the parties to the arbitration. An application was also filed under section 41 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 by Ashok Leyland for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the said disputes. (6). Hence, the Receiver was appointed on 25th February, 1994 and was directed to sell tippers out of the said 12 tippers. An application was also filed under section 41 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 by Ashok Leyland for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the said disputes. (6). Hence, the Receiver was appointed on 25th February, 1994 and was directed to sell tippers out of the said 12 tippers. Further, Sri Gopal Law, Barrister-at-Law was appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and in terms of the order the Receiver sold 11 tippers and retained one tipper bearing Registration No. OR-06-8270. (7). Further, on 11th June, 1996, the Arbitrator entered upon the reference and the award was published by the learned Arbitrator on 3rd July, 2000. An application was also filed by Everest Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd. for directing the Receiver to sell the remaining tipper and accordingly, the order was passed by the Court on 13th December, 2000. (8). Hence, the appellant filed an application for setting aside of the application. The Honble Court directed that the said application should be tried on evidence and the Receiver was directed to encash the fixed deposits and to deposit the entire amount together with interest accrued thereon with the Registrar, Original Side. The other direction was also given to the Registrar to make over the principal amount together with accrued interest thereon to the Ashok Leyland upon furnishing of an adequate security by the said Ashok Leyland. (9). Hence, it appears that time to time, the said application appeared before the Court for setting aside of the award in question and the said application was dismissed, since none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter, on 2nd August, 2002, a decree in terms of the award was passed by the Honble Court an application was filed for recalling of the order made on 19th August, 2002 which was dismissed for default! (10). It further appears from the fact that the said application for recalling was also dismissed on 19th July, 2007 and a further application was filed by the petitioner for recalling of the said order dated 19th July, 2007 when His Lordship was pleased to direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 Crore with the respective Advocate-on-Record as a condition for allowing the said restoration applications. It further appears that since the condition could not be fulfilled by the appellant herein, the application for restoration was also dismissed. (11). 1 Crore with the respective Advocate-on-Record as a condition for allowing the said restoration applications. It further appears that since the condition could not be fulfilled by the appellant herein, the application for restoration was also dismissed. (11). After perusing the order passed by the Honble First Court, it appears to us from the petition that according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the imposition of such condition to deposit the amount cannot be made by the Honble Court at that point of time and it is submitted that the Court has no power to pass such order. (12). After perusing the petition and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length, it appears that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the application for recalling of the said order. (13). Hence, in our considered opinion, the Court has power to impose a condition where the Court deems fit and proper to pass a conditional order for restoration of an application. It is also to be noted that His Lordship tried to find out the bona fideness of the petitioner/appellant herein only to restore the said application by imposing such condition. (14). Hence, we hold that the Court has authority to impose a condition to pass such order and furthermore, it is nothing but a discretionary order and we do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the Honble First Court. (15). Accordingly, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. (16). In view of this order, there will be no order on the other appeal being A.P.O.T. No. 504 of 2007. Appeal dismissed.