ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. It is found that the revision petitioner, who suffered an ex parte decree in the main suit in O.S.No. 230 of 2004, has preferred an application in I.A.No. 258 of 2005, to set aside the said ex parte decree, under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. 3. The Court below, considering the request of the revision petitioner and in the interest of justice was inclined to allow the application above mentioned on a condition that the revision petitioner deposits half of the suit claim on or before 05.04.2006. The said order has been challenged in this revision. 4. It is found that as represented by the respondent's counsel the conditional order has not been complied with. Further, when at the request of the revision petitioner and in the interest of justice the Court below was pleased to pass a conditional order, it is too much on the part of the revision petitioner to argue that the above order is erroneous in law. Having failed to contest the suit and leaving the matter ex parte and thereafter, on taking an application and agreeing to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the Court, the Court having imposed the condition directing the revision petitioner to pay half of the suit claim, the present civil revision petition laid by the revision petitioner impugning the same cannot be accepted. The Court below has rightly considered the request of the revision petitioner and taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, imposed the fair and just condition, which does not warrant any interference from this Court. 5. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.