KARUMURI SURAYYA Vs. THADEPALLI PUSHPAVALLI THAYARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition raises a question of some importance regarding the interpretation of Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. This petition is filed by the defendant seeking to revise the order of the District Judge who. confirmed the order of the District Munsif allowing his application to set aside an ex parte decree subject to certain conditions.

(2.) The petitioner filed C. M. P. No. 1014 of 1946 for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him on 10th July 1946. The District Munsif allowed the application of the petitioner subject "only to the condition that the costs of the suit and the mesne profits decreed were deposited into Court. The defendant who was aggrieved by that order preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Kistna, complaining that the conditions imposed were onerous. The District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court holding that the Munsif had a wide discretion in imposing such terms as he thought fit.

(3.) In the civil revision petition filed against that order it has been urged before me on behalf of the petitioner that under Order 9, Rule 13, the Court has no power to direct the defendant to deposit the decretal amount. It has been argued that the expression "such terms" in the rule relates only to payment of costs, and that the words "payment into Court or otherwise" refers only to "costs" immediately preceding that expression. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the use of comma after the word 'costs' and before the words "payment into Court" supports his contention. I do not think that I can accept this contention.