This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of some importance regarding the interpretation of Order 9, rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. 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.

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.

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 de