ORDER : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The Civil Revision Application No. 219 of 2017 arises out of the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by 18th (Ad-hoc) Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) below Exh. 15 in Special Execution Petition No. 11 of 2016, whereby the trial Court has stayed the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC on the condition that the respondent-judgment debtor shall deposit Rs. 17 lacs before the trial Court within 30 days from the date of the order. 2. The Civil Revision Application No. 251 of 2017 arises out of the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the respondent-defendant - judgment debtor under Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC and setting aside the decree dated 30.04.2016 passed in Special Summary Suit No. 16 of 2016. 3. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the documents on record, it appears that the present applicant-plaintiff had filed a Summary Suit being No. 16 of 2016 seeking recovery of Rs. 14,68,836/- with interest from the respondent-defendant under Order 37 of CPC. On 02.09.2016, the trial Court issued the summons for appearance, which was served to the mother-in-law of the defendant. The trial Court treated the same as the proper service and passed the judgment and decree in the suit. The applicant-plaintiff thereafter filed execution petition, in which the notice was issued to the respondent on the same address at which it was sought to be served before. The respondent-judgment debtor having filed his appearance through one Advocate Mr. Prajapati, in the execution proceedings, the trial Court granted him time. It appears that thereafter the respondent- defendant on 23.03.2017 filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in the Suit. The trial Court after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, allowed the said application of the respondent-defendant vide the order dated 12.05.2017, against which the applicant has preferred Civil Revision Application No. 251 of 2017. The trial Court also allowed the application of the respondent-defendant staying the execution proceedings as per the order dated 17.04.2017, against which the applicant has preferred the Civil Revision Application No. 219 of 2017. 4. The trial Court also allowed the application of the respondent-defendant staying the execution proceedings as per the order dated 17.04.2017, against which the applicant has preferred the Civil Revision Application No. 219 of 2017. 4. During the course of the arguments, both the learned advocates for the parties have submitted that both the Revision Applications be disposed of by directing respondent- defendant to deposit 50% of the decretal amount within a stipulated time, and the applications of the parties be heard afresh. Mr. Parikh for the applicant also states that the respondent-defendant has already filed an application seeking leave to defend, after the decree has been set aside by the trial Court. 5. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, it is directed that the respondent - defendant shall deposit 50% of the decretal amount on or before 29.09.2017, before the trial Court and on such deposit being made, the applicant-plaintiff shall be at liberty to withdraw the same on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court, pending the suit. It is clarified that if the respondent fails to deposit the amount as directed, the decree passed in the Suit shall be confirmed and consequentially the applicant-plaintiff shall be at liberty to proceed further in the execution proceedings. However, if the respondent deposits the amount as directed, the trial Court shall hear and decide afresh the summons for judgment filed by the applicant-plaintiff and the application seeking leave to defend filed by the respondent-defendant in accordance with law. 6. Subject to the afore stated directions, both the Civil Revision Applications stand disposed of.