Order 9 Rule 7

The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount. The suit proceeded and 11th October, 1995 was the date fixed for hearing. The suit was proceeding ex-parte as the defendants had not put in appearance. This attitude of the defendants who are the revisionists before this Court led to the passing of the impugned order 10.10.1997 imposing a condition that the defendant shall deposit a sum equivalent to 10% of the amount as claimed in the suit which would be refundable in the circumstances as defined in the impugned order itself. This revision was preferred by the defendants questioning correctness of the said order as being beyond the purview of the court to impose such condition while exercising powers under Rule 7 of Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code, and this Court way back in the year 1997 stayed all further proceedings in the suit. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and facts on record, there is no doubt that the defendants were not cooperating with the Court that let to the passing of the order on 11th October, 1995. They, however, moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. and the Court passed the impugned order for depositing 10% of the amount claimed under the plaint allegations. In the opinion of the Court the word otherwise used in Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. does not contemplate the imposition of such a condition and it only indicates that the Court can pass an order of imposing costs or impose any such terms otherwise that may be in the nature of costs. The amount directed to be deposited. Therefore, cannot be made refundable as has been done by the trial court. In opinion of the Court, the impugned order is manifestly contrary to the scope of the provisions of under Rule 7 of Order IX of C.P.C., and cannot be sustained. At the same time, keeping in view the attitude of the defendant and the manner in which the case has proceeded, it would be in the interest of justice to impose costs for the purpose of allowing the applicant-defendant to participate in the suit from the stage that the ex-parte order was passed on 11th October, 1995. In opinion of Court a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost would be sufficient for the said purpose which shall be deposited by the defendants-revisionist before the Court below within one month from the date of passing of this order. The revision is allowed. The order dated 10.10.1997 is set aside. The ex-parte order dated 10.10.1995 is also set aside as costs have been imposed by this Court and the suit shall now proceed on day to day basis without any further unnecessary adjournments being granted to the defendantrevisionist. (M/S New Manufacturing Com. and others Vs. State Bank of India; (2012 (30) LCD 2614) (Allahabad High Court)