Judgment : This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No.282 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, assailing the condition imposed by the trial Court, while allowing the application which is filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set-aside the ex parte decree dated 26.09.2007, by order dated 20th February, 2009 in I.A. No.684 of 2008. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No.282 of 2007. The suit is filed for recovery of amount. The parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the interlocutory application. 3. The petitioner filed the present I.A. No.684 of 2008 to set-aside the ex parte decree in the suit. The case of the petitioner is that when suit is posted for written statement, he could not contact his counsel as he was unable to obtain leave from office. Apart from that, one of his close relatives fell sick and he had to accompany him. Subsequently, when he met his counsel, he informed him that the suit was decreed ex parte on 26.09.2007. That the petitioner has a good case. Therefore, he sought to set-aside the ex parte decree. The case of the respondent is that though the petitioner made his appearance in the suit on 20.06.2007 through his counsel, he failed to file written statement in spite of sufficient opportunity being given to him. When the respondent filed E.P. and the matter is posted for counter, the petitioner has come up with this interlocutory application. The trial Court after enquiry allowed the I.A. subject to condition of petitioner depositing 1/4th of the decretal amount of Rs.4,28,066/-and suit costs of Rs.14,540/-on or before 19.03.2009, failing which the I.A. would stand dismissed. Aggrieved by the imposition of condition, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. 5. On 20.08.2010, in CMAMP No.1735 of 2010, this Court granted interim stay on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/-within a period of four weeks. It is stated that the conditional order has been complied with. 6. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. 5. On 20.08.2010, in CMAMP No.1735 of 2010, this Court granted interim stay on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/-within a period of four weeks. It is stated that the conditional order has been complied with. 6. CMAMP No.2156 of 2010 is filed seeking to vacate the interim order dated 20.08.2010 made in CMAMP No.1735 of 2010 in CMA No.972 of 2010. Since the conditional order of this Court dated 20.08.2010 has been complied with and the respondent was permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security, no relief was granted in the vacate stay petition, and as such, the interim stay was made absolute. 7. Counsel for the petitioner (appellant herein) had taken this Court through the order, which is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, allowing the I.A. on condition of deposit of 1/4th decretal amount and the suit costs on or before 19.03.2009, that too without recording any specific reasons, cannot be sustained as the condition is onerous. The counsel also has taken this Court through the respective stands taken in the pleadings by the parties and would maintain that inasmuch as the conditional order made by this Court has been complied by depositing Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner be permitted to contest the matter. The learned counsel placed the reliance on the decision in Shaik Ahmed Mohammad v. Damodardas Haridas and Sons, Sec’bad ( 2009 (5) ALD 110 ). 8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has taken this Court through paragraph 5 of the order under challenge and would maintain that inasmuch as the learned Judge referred the conduct of the petitioner, it can be taken that sufficient reasons have been recorded while imposing condition of deposit of 1/4th of decretal amount and suit costs, and as such, the same cannot be said to be onerous. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following point arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following point arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. Whether the condition imposed relating to the deposit of 1/4th of decretal amount and suit costs by the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Kakinada has to be confirmed, or to be disturbed or to be modified, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. The petitioner is expected to be diligent and conscious while prosecuting the litigation. In the light of the stand taken in the counter filed by the respondent, the learned Judge taking the conduct of the petitioner into consideration, came to the conclusion that it is just and proper to impose the condition of deposit of 1/4th of decretal amount and suit costs on or before 19.03.2009. 12. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in such cases, and depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular given case while allowing an application to set-aside the ex parte decree certain conditions would be imposed. Whether such conditions imposed are onerous or justifiable or unjustifiable may have to be decided in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It is difficult to lay down the guidelines exhaustively, in this regard. At best, certain circumstances may be specified, which, at the best, can be said to be illustrative. Here is a case where this Court already has granted interim stay on condition of deposit of Rs.50,000/-and the said amount has been deposited and the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. As far as the imposition of condition of 1/4th of decretal amount and suit costs on or before 19.03.2009 is concerned, this Court is satisfied that taking into consideration the respective pleadings of the parties, this portion of the condition being onerous, the same is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the condition of imposition of deposit of 1/4th of decrial amount and suit costs into the Court on or before 19.03.2009 is hereby set aside and it is needless to say that the condition of deposit of Rs.50,000/- has already been complied with and the same is hereby recorded. The point is accordingly answered. 13. Accordingly, the condition of imposition of deposit of 1/4th of decrial amount and suit costs into the Court on or before 19.03.2009 is hereby set aside and it is needless to say that the condition of deposit of Rs.50,000/- has already been complied with and the same is hereby recorded. The point is accordingly answered. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed modifying the order under challenge to the extent that the condition imposed relating to the deposit of 1/4th of the decretal amount and suit costs on or before 19.03.2009 is hereby set aside and inasmuch as the conditional order made by this Court has been complied with and the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Since the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 26.09.2007 is allowed, the parties are at liberty to participate in the further proceedings and inasmuch the learned counsel on either side pleaded urgency, let the learned Judge dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible . No order as to costs.