JUDGMENT 1. Defendant in the suit filed the above revision petition challenging the order dtd. 17/12/2021 in I.A.No.7143 of 2018 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court, Kurnool. 2. Respondent being plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.77 of 2013 against the petitioner herein for recovery of amount. Revision petitioner being defendant filed written statement, however, he could not contest the matter. Hence, he was set ex parte. By the judgment and decree dtd. 10/8/2018, trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant filed I.A.No.1743 of 2018 under Order IX Rule 13 and Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dtd. 10/8/2013. 3. Counter was filed by the respondent and opposed the application. 4. Trial Court by order dtd. 17/12/2021, allowed the application and set aside the ex parte decree, however, on condition of petitioner depositing into Court the entire suit costs and Rs.26,00,000.00 which is part of the decretal amount. Time is granted till 7/1/2022. 5. Against the said order, present revision petition is filed. 6. This Court by order dtd. 1/4/2022 granted interim stay and the stay is being extended from time to time. 7. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Naga Phanindra, learned counsel representing Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the condition imposed by the Court below while setting aside the ex parte decree is onerous. Learned counsel would further contend that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was filed within 30 days and the same shows that the petitioner is diligent in prosecuting the proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings. Having filed he written statement, he did not contest the suit, as a result, an ex parte decree was passed. The condition imposed by the trial Court is not onerous. 10. While considering the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the Court has to see whether the petitioner assigned proper reasons to set aside the ex parte decree. However, the Court also, while considering the application to set aside the exparte decree, can impose reasonable costs to meet the ends of justice. 10. While considering the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the Court has to see whether the petitioner assigned proper reasons to set aside the ex parte decree. However, the Court also, while considering the application to set aside the exparte decree, can impose reasonable costs to meet the ends of justice. If sufficient cause is made out for non-appearance of the defendant on the date fixed for hearing when ex parte proceedings were initiated against him, he cannot be penalized for his previous negligence. In a case where the defendant approaches the Court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional. A discretionary jurisdiction has been conferred upon the court passing an order for setting aside an ex parte decree not only on the basis that the defendant had been able to prove sufficient cause for his non- appearance even on the date when the decree was passed, but also on other attending facts and circumstances. It may also consider the question as to whether the defendant should be put on terms. The Court, indisputably, however, is not denuded of its power to put the defendants to terms. It is, however, trite that such terms should not be unreasonable or harshly excessive. Once unreasonable or harsh conditions are imposed, higher court can interfere with such discretion. 11. In Vijay Kumar Madan v. R.N.Gupta Technical education Society, (2002) 5 SCC 30 . the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the practice of imposing an undue condition and putting the defendant on onerous terms, stating as under: "7. Power in the court to impose costs and to put the defendant-applicant on terms is spelled out from the expression 'upon such terms as the court directs as to costs or otherwise'. It is settled with the decision of this Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar ( AIR 1964 SC 993 ) that on an adjourned hearing, in spite of the court having proceeded ex parte earlier the defendant is entitled to appear and participate in the subsequent proceedings as of right. An application under Rule 7 is required to be made only if the defendant wishes the proceedings to be reflected back and reopen the proceedings from the date wherefrom they became ex parte so as to convert the ex parte hearings into bi-parte. An application under Rule 7 is required to be made only if the defendant wishes the proceedings to be reflected back and reopen the proceedings from the date wherefrom they became ex parte so as to convert the ex parte hearings into bi-parte. While exercising power of putting the defendant on terms under Rule 7 the court cannot pass an order which would have the effect of placing the defendant in a situation more worse off than what he would have been in if he had not applied under Rule 7. So also the conditions for taking benefit of the order should not be such as would have the effect of decreeing the suit itself. Similarly, the court may not in the garb of exercising power of placing upon terms make an order which probably the court may not have made in the suit itself. As pointed out in Arjun Singh (supra) the purpose of Rule 7 in its essence is to ensure the orderly conduct of the proceedings by penalizing improper dilatoriness calculated merely to prolong the litigation." 12. In Somalal Nathalal Mistri v. Vasant Investment Corpn. Ltd.,ILR 1954 Bom 371 . it was held as under: "The next question is whether the condition which has been imposed by the court below is a reasonable condition. The expression 'such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit' suggests that the matter is one of discretion, but the discretion is to be exercised in a judicial manner. The condition to be imposed, therefore, upon a defendant should be reasonable and not oppressive. What condition should be imposed in a particular case must depend upon the facts of each case. In a particular case the court may come to the conclusion that the defendant should pay into court the entire amount. In another case the court may come to the conclusion that it will suffice if the defendant is ordered to pay a portion of the decretal amount, and in a third case it is conceivable that the court may come to the conclusion that the ends of justice will be met if the defendant is made to pay the amount of costs only. The true principle seems to me to be that while the court has got power to impose conditions upon a defendant including the condition of the payment of the entire amount of the decree, the conditions to be imposed should be reasonable and should not be oppressive or at least should not be conditions which will result in the defendant not being able to defend the suit." 13. In G.P.Srivastava v. R.K.Raizada And Othrs,(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54 . the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that in a case where the defendant approaches the court immediately and within the statutory time stipulated, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional and for the absence of a party in the case the other side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits. 14. Trial Court while setting aside the order, relied upon the judgment of the composite High Court at Hyderabad in Gurram Anjeswar v. S.Nagalaxmi,2016 (6) ALD 203. and directed the revision petitioner to deposit 1/3 of the decretal amount and costs. However, trial Court must see the facts of each case. In the case on hand, in fact trial court having satisfied with the reason assigned by the revision petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court ought not to have imposed condition of deposit of Rs.26,00,000.00. The suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.77.00 lakhs. By imposing condition trial court directed the defendant to deposit 1/3 of suit amount, in the facts of this case, is not proper. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dtd. 17/12/2021 in I.A.No.1743 of 2018 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 is modified to the extent of deposit of Rs.26,00,000.00. The petitioner (defendant) shall deposit Rs.10.00 lakhs and suit costs within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the revision petitioner fails to comply with the aforementioned condition, the order passed by the trial Court will come into operation. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.