1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit O. S. No. 841 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri. The suit was one for recovery of certain amounts. The suit was originally decreed ex parte, but that decree was set aside on 16 81969. Thereafter the suit was posted for filing written statement of the defendant to 12 91969. No written statement was filed on that day and the case was adjourned to 26 91969. That day also the statement was not filed. Further time was granted till 3101969, and yet the written statement was not filed. Thereafter time was granted upto 21-10-1969. That day not only no written statement was filed, but the defendant was not present also, and his Advocate reported no instructions. The court, therefore again decreed the suit ex parte.

2. On 3110 1969 the defendant filed I. A. No. 2809/69 under Order IX, R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte decree stating inter alia that he was laid up, and producing Ex. Al medical certificate in support of his contention. This petition was resisted by the plaintiff. Finally, the learned Munsiff passed an order setting aside the ex parte decree on condition that the defendant deposits in court the entire decree amount including costs within one month from the date of the order. This order was passed on 18 121969. The learned Munsiff posted the petition to 1911970 for deposit.

3. This order was challenged by the defendant in C. M. A. No. 7 of 1970 on the file of the District Court, Kozhikode, which was subsequently transferred to the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri, at Kozhikode, in which court it was numbered as C. M. A. 30 of 1970. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 6 111970. It is the judgment of the learned Subordinate judge confirming the order of the learned Munsiff that is under challenge in this revision petition.

4. Various grounds have been taken by the revision petitioner in the memorandum of civil revision petition filed by him. The main contentions, however, seem to be that (1) the revision petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to establish his case, as the ex parte decree was passed on the very same day on which the plaintiff filed his objections to the petitioner's petition for setting aside the ex parte decree; and (2) in any event the condition that the defendant should deposit the entire decree amount including the costs within one month is onerous, not warranted by the provisions of 0.9, R.13 of the C. P. C.

5. Before entering the merit of the case it has become necessary to dispose of a preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent with respect to the maintainability of the revision petition. It is argued by the learned counsel that this revision is filed from the judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 30 of 1970 which itself was incompetent. The contention is that from the order dated 18-12-1969, which is in the nature of a preliminary order, no appeal would lie and, if that be so, a revision from the judgment in that appeal also cannot lie.

6. My attention has been drawn to 0.43, R.1 (d) of the CPC., in terms of which an appeal shall lie from an order under R.13 of O. IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree or order passed ex parte. According to the learned counsel, the order dated 18-12-1969 is really an order allowing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree on condition. It is only by virtue of the second order that was to be passed on or after 19-1-1970, to which date the Petition was posted for recording deposit, that a proper order rejecting the application could be made, in case there was failure to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 18-12-1969. It is also pointed out that in appropriate cases, if moved under S.148 of the C. P. C., it is open to court to enlarge the time for the fulfilment of the condition, and that being so, by no s