JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.1, Union Bank of India, Kasba Zamania, District Ghazipur branch instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.278883.75 along with interest against the petitioner who was borrower and respondent No.2, Sri Hriday Narain Lal, the guarantor. It was stated in the plaint that petitioner had taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and the amount claimed in the plaint was unpaid part of the principal amount along with interest. The suit was registered as O.S. No.79 of 1990. It was decreed ex parte on 28.08.1998. On the very next date, i.e. on 29.08.1998 petitioner filed application for restoration, which was registered as Misc. Case No.146 of 1998. The restoration application was rejected by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur on 15.05.2001. Against the said order, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2001, which was dismissed by II A.D.J., Ghazipur on 04.10.2005 hence this writ petition. 2. Both the courts below rejected the restoration application on the ground that defendant was delaying the disposal of the suit and had admitted in his written statement that he had taken the loan. It was also held that written statement itself was filed after eight years i.e. in the year 1998. Courts below also noticed that earlier an order had been passed directing the suit to proceed ex parte on 21.10.1992, however the said order was recalled on 16.02.1993 hence it proved that defendant was trying to delay the proceedings. 3. The petitioner filed affidavit in support of the restoration application which remained uncontroverted. 4. In my opinion, as restoration application had been filed on the very next date and as the affidavit filed in support thereof remained uncontroverted hence restoration application should have been allowed. Moreover, the earlier order of proceeding ex parte, which had already been set aside five years before could not be a ground to reject the restoration application. The fact that written statement was filed late also could not be a ground for the said purpose. As far as the question of admitting the loan is concerned while allowing the restoration application trial court could impose condition. 5. Copy of the written statement is Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.03.2012. The fact that written statement was filed late also could not be a ground for the said purpose. As far as the question of admitting the loan is concerned while allowing the restoration application trial court could impose condition. 5. Copy of the written statement is Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.03.2012. In para-23 of the written statement defendant petitioner categorically admitted that on 28.12.1982 he had taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- out of which he had paid Rs.48066.75, which had not been deducted by the bank and the amount claimed in the plaint was not due in its entirety. In view of this, the allegation made in para-12 of the writ petition that only an amount of Rs.34600/- as mentioned in Annexure-4 to the writ petition was due is utterly wrong. Annexure-4 to the writ petition is a chart prepared by accountant of the petitioner himself. 6. In the plaint the amount claimed was Rs.278883.70. In para-23 of the written statement it was admitted that petitioner repaid only an amount of Rs.48066.95. Deducting the said amount from the amount claimed in the plaint, the figure which is arrived at is Rs.230817/-. Moreover, during last 22 years lot of interest must have accrued upon the unpaid/ admitted amount. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside. Restoration application of the petitioner is allowed and ex-parte decree dated 28.08.1998 is set aside on the condition that within three months from today petitioner deposits Rs.5 lacs with the respondent bank or before the trial court for immediate payment to the bank concerned. If the suit is decreed for lesser amount then the balance amount shall be returned to the petitioner by the bank along with 12% per year interest in case in the suit petitioner does not seek more than two adjournments. However in case petitioner seeks more than two adjournments then the balance amount, if any, shall be returned along with interest of 6% per year. It is further directed that if within three months petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.5 lacs then the ex parte decree shall stand and be executed forthwith. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.