CHEKURI MALAKONDAIAH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 25-11-2010 in C.M.A. No. 21/2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ongole, whereby she has confirmed order dated 29-6-2010 in I.A. No. 36/2009 in O.S. No. 10/2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. I have heard Smt. Nandigama Revathi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioners are third parties to the above mentioned suit filed by respondent No. 1 for recovery of mortgage amounts from respondent Nos. 2 to 5. As respondent Nos. 2 to 5 remained ex-parte, an ex-parte preliminary decree was passed on 20-8-2008. The petitioners who claim to have purchased the mortgaged property of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed I.A. No. 36/2009 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set-aside the ex-parte decree. The Court below by order dated 29-6-2010 allowed the said application, subject to the condition of the petitioners depositing the entire suit amount and costs. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal i.e., C.M.A. No. 21/2010 which was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court by its order dated 25-11-2010. Questioning both these orders, the petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though the trial Court has jurisdiction to impose reasonable conditions for setting aside the ex-parte decree, such conditions imposed are not to be onerous and harsh. She has submitted that the direction to deposit the entire suit amount with costs, is truly onerous and therefore, the order of the trial Court, as confirmed in the appeal, is not sustainable. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in V.K. Industries and others Vs. M.P. Electricity Board, Rampur, 2002 3 SCC 159.