JUDGMENT DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.8.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.6322 of 2008 by which the writ petition of the appellant has been partly allowed against the order of the trial Court dated 5.4.2008. By the said order the trial Court while considering the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called “CPC”) without deciding the same directed the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount within a month and directed to list the applications for interim relief, under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC and under Section 47, CPC filed by the appellant thereafter. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the appellant pre¬ferred W.P.(C) No.6322 of 2008 which has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge reducing the amount to 50 per cent as di¬rected by the trial Court. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether such a condition could have been imposed by the trial Court prior to disposal of any of the applications pending before it. 5. Order 9, Rule 13, CPC reads as under : “R.13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant. - In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defend¬ant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceed¬ing with the suit.” (Emphasis added) It is evident from the plain language of the provision itself that Court is competent to impose such a condition provid¬ed it sets aside the ex parte decree and restore the matter for hearing de novo. 6. Under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC the Court has jurisdiction to impose condition including direction for payment of cost or for deposit of decretal amount or part of it or to furnish securi¬ty. 6. Under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC the Court has jurisdiction to impose condition including direction for payment of cost or for deposit of decretal amount or part of it or to furnish securi¬ty. The expression ‘upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit’ in Order 9, Rule 13 CPC indicates that the Court is empowered to impose terms. Now what are these terms has been specified in the expression ‘as it thinks fit’ leaves discretion of the Court quite open. It has not been provided that the Court is not empowered to use its discre¬tion to the extent of direction for deposit of decretal amount or furnishing of security. (Vide Raj Kumar Soni v. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., AIR 1979 All. 370 ; B. Madan Mohan v. B. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1933 All. 601; Nanak Chand v. Preetam Lal, AIR 1972 All.166; Gaya Deen v. Lalta Prasad, AIR 1936 All. 142; M/s. Jayshree Distribution Piplani Katra & Ors. v. Jayshree Tyres & Rubber Products, AIR 1989 All. 158 ; Chhagan Raj v. Sugan Mal, AIR 1958 Raj. 237 ; M/s. Northern Carries Pvt. v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1986 P & H 175; B. Padmavathi Rai v. Parrathiamna, AIR 1976 Karnt 97; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Anjan Kumar Arora & Ors., AIR 1987 Cal. 197 ; and Jag¬damba General Store & Anr. v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun & Ors., 1998 (3) AWC 2086 ). 7. In V.K. Industries & Ors. v. M.P. Electricity Board, AIR 2002 SC 1151 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the money decree is not stayed ordinarily unconditionally and the Court may impose conditions to deposit cost or the decretal amount or part thereof or the party may be asked to furnish security while restoring a case, but such conditions should be reasonable and not harshly excessive. 8. Thus, while allowing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the Court is competent to impose the condition of pre-deposit of decretal amount in full or part or ask to furnish security or impose such other reasonable condi¬tions. But no condition can be imposed for entertaining the application itself. 9. 8. Thus, while allowing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the Court is competent to impose the condition of pre-deposit of decretal amount in full or part or ask to furnish security or impose such other reasonable condi¬tions. But no condition can be imposed for entertaining the application itself. 9. This view is fully supported by the judgment of the Madras High Court and Allahabad High Court respectively in Nara¬yanan Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar, AIR 1940 Madras 585 and in Kunj Behari Lal alias Kunji Lal v. Kashi Prasad, AIR 1944 All. 236. Such a condition can be imposed only after allowing an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC and not prior to that as a condition precedent to entertain the same. 10. It is beyond our imagination as under what circum¬stances the condition can be imposed in consideration of the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. More so, the entire amount may be asked to be deposited only when the bona fides of defendant is found to be doubtful. The Court does not have power to impose any such condition before entertaining into the merits of the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC for the simple reason that it cannot be condition precedent for entertaining an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. If at the time of setting aside the ex parte decree the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant had sufficient cause for being absent on the date the ex parte decree was passed the question of imposing such a condition would not arise while setting aside the ex parte decree. The Court can merely award costs to compensate either side for the inconvenience and loss caused to the said party. Therefore, the Court under no circum¬stance should impose a condition in onerous terms. (Vide Raj Kumar Soni v. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., AIR 1979 All. 370 ). 11. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Anjan Kumar Arora & Ors., AIR 1987 Cal. 197 dealing with the issue came to the conclusion “while allowing an application for restoration, the Court can certainly impose conditions and they are at times done. But such conditions must be reasonable and must have some justification having regard to the attending circumstances. 197 dealing with the issue came to the conclusion “while allowing an application for restoration, the Court can certainly impose conditions and they are at times done. But such conditions must be reasonable and must have some justification having regard to the attending circumstances. Such condition cannot be imposed which is arbitrary.” 12. In Valluru Kasturio Bai & Anr. v. Pamulapati Varalaksh¬mi, AIR 1983 NOC 176, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that conditions so imposed should not only be reasonable but Court must record reasons for imposing such conditions for the reason that such a direction can be issued only in special circumstances depending upon the facts of a case. 13. Needless to say that there may be requirement under some special statute in making deposit of the entire decretal amount for entertaining such an application as provided under Section 17 of the Provisional Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Where it is so provided under the statute, the Court has no option but to enforce such a statutory provision. (Vide Kedarnath v. Mohan¬lal Kesarwari & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 582 ; Ram Chandra v. IXth Addi¬tional District Judge, Varanasi & Ors., AIR 1991 All. 223 and Suresh Chand v. VII Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar & Ors., AIR 1992 All. 295 ). Such a condition is required to be enforced mandatorily if it is so provided under a particular statute. It has so been provided therein that Small Cause Courts are conferred with jurisdiction to try summarily such specified category of cases which need to be and are capable of being disposed of by adopting summary procedure of litigation 14. The instant case relates to employment and enforcement of service conditions including compensation etc. This is not being tried by the Small Cause Court. 15. Therefore, in view of the above, the law can be summa¬rized that the Court is competent to impose a condition while allowing an application . Under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. Direction to deposit any part of the decretal amount or imposing any condition is not justified for entertaining an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. Imposing such a condition would be tantamount to execution of a decree either partly or fully before considering the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. 16. Under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. Direction to deposit any part of the decretal amount or imposing any condition is not justified for entertaining an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. Imposing such a condition would be tantamount to execution of a decree either partly or fully before considering the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. 16. Thus, in view of the above, we set aside the order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment/order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.8.2008 and request the learned trial Court dealing with the execution matter to take up the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC first and dispose it of in accordance with law. In case the learned trial Court comes to the conclusion that the application has merit only then, it may impose the condition etc. In case the application is rejected, learned trial Courts requested to con¬sider the application under Section 47, CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that the defendant shall file objection to the said application within two weeks from today. The trial Court may take up the case immediately thereafter and conclude the hearing of all the applications expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of the certified copy of the judgment before the Court concerned. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Appeal disposed of.