JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J. :- This is an application praying for modification of order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2010 on 27th July, 2010. 2. This Court had heard the Letters Patent Appeal and issued notices. 3. In the order dated 27th July, 2010, this Court incorporated following Clause in the order :-- "In the meanwhile, the appellants, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the appeal, are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in this Court within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that if the appellants fail to deposit the amount as aforementioned, the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court." 4. By this application, the applicants pray for deleting the clause quoted in foregoing para, as it results in injustice. 5. This application has been opposed by the respondents. 6. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Mohta for the applicants, learned Adv. Mr. A.P. Tathod for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned AGP Mr. D.B. Patel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 7. On behalf of applicants, it is argued that imposition of such a condition precedent for hearing of appeal :-- (a) Would defeat the purpose of Court's taking cognizance of such appeal. (b) Would be resulting in compounding an error creeping in the order under appeal, due to which Court was pleased to admit the appeal. (c) Results in approval of order impugned in appeal without hearing and application of mind, and for a default which is recognized by law to be mandatory pre-requirement for hearing of appeal on merits. (d) Appeal is a right created by statute, and it cannot be taken away even by judicial order. Depending upon as to whether any Court is satisfied, Court may grant or refuse the prayer for stay or any other interlocutory order, and on such conditions, however, imposition of such a condition as a condition precedent for hearing of appeal results in taking away right of appeal. (e) Jurisdiction to impose such a condition is neither provided or comprehended by law. 8. This Court finds support to the propositions advanced from following reported judgments :-- (a) B.P. Agarwal and another vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. and ors., (2008) 3 SCC 397 , (b) Management of Devi Theatre vs. Vishwanath Raju, 2004(3) MhLJ. (S.C.) 1 and (c) Mt. (e) Jurisdiction to impose such a condition is neither provided or comprehended by law. 8. This Court finds support to the propositions advanced from following reported judgments :-- (a) B.P. Agarwal and another vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. and ors., (2008) 3 SCC 397 , (b) Management of Devi Theatre vs. Vishwanath Raju, 2004(3) MhLJ. (S.C.) 1 and (c) Mt. Afzali Begam vs. Lala Kanhaya Lal, AIR 1932 Allahabad 511. 9. On perusal of these judgments, it is seen that Their Lordships have held that imposing a condition for deposit of money subject to which an appeal be admitted for hearing on merits, is not legally justified. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that if the party is not able to comply with such conditions, it results in compounding the error due to which the appeal is being entertained. 11. We are satisfied that if an application for stay is filed, Court would consider such application on its merits, may order deposit or direct parties to furnish security or to do any other act or forbearance. 12. We are further satisfied that the para quoted above contained in the order dated 27th July, 2010 is adverse to the law of the land as seen in the binding precedents and is hence based on error apparent on the face, and we propose to delete said part. 13. We, therefore, allow this Civil Application and delete paragraph quoted in para No.3 which is last unnumbered paragraph of order passed on 27th July, 2010 by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2010. 14. Parties are directed to bear own costs. Application allowed.