STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SIBARAM BARAL SIMARAM BARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the respondent had been served with notice on 5/8/1992, till date neither the unserved cover nor the acknowledgement has been received back. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) The only question is whether the High court can direct the appellant to deposit the decretal amount with costs of Rs. 7,500. 00 as a condition to setting aside the ex parte decree The respondent laid the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,46,820 9 against the appellants. The suit came to be decreed ex parte. The appellant has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial court set aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of Rs. 50. The High court in the impugned order dated 8/1/1992 in CR No. 694 of 1991 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial court and directed theappellants to deposit the decretal amount and the costs. Order 41 Rule 1 (3 of Civil Procedure Code provides thus: