Conclusion of the Case

The Supreme Court allowed both Civil Appeals Nos. 4472/2015 and 4473/2015. (!) [1000566240012]

Key Holdings: - The condition imposed by the trial court requiring deposit of the entire decretal amounts (Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/-) as a precondition for setting aside the ex-parte decrees was held unreasonable and onerous, considering the disputed nature of the claims and the sufficient cause shown for delay in filing applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. (!) (!) [1000566240011] - The Madras High Court erred in upholding the trial court's order without interfering with the disproportionate deposit condition, which defeated the purpose of equitable relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. (!) [1000566240012] - While setting aside the deposit conditions, the Supreme Court directed the appellants to keep the Rs. 50,00,000/- already deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 01.08.2013 with the Registry, adjustable against any final decree, and to furnish bank guarantee for the balance decretal amount within 8 weeks to secure the respondents' interests during trial. (!) (!) [1000566240013] - The trial court was directed to expeditiously dispose of I.A. Nos. 77/2012 and 78/2012 on merits, affording opportunity to both parties, preferably within 6 months from the date of the judgment. (!) [1000566240014] - No costs awarded in the appeals. (!)

Rationale Summary: - Ex-parte decrees should be set aside if sufficient cause for non-appearance is established, balancing equities without imposing punitive preconditions that prejudice the defendant. (!) (!) - Respondents' interests protected through modified security, given their age and financial hardship, but not at the cost of denying appellants a fair trial opportunity. (!) (!) [1000566240006][1000566240010]