Revision cannot be converted in to an appeal.

1. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned I Additional Sub-Judge, Erode in I.A.No.62 of 2000. The defendants are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein filed suit O.S.No.220 of 1998 on instrument herein filed suit O.S.No.220 of 1998 on instrument dated 25.3.1996. The defendants in the suit are the legal representatives of the deceased Thiyagarajan.

2. The suit was posted for the evidence of the defendants on 6.7.1999. As the defendants failed to appear on that date, ex parte decree was passed. Thereupon, the first defendant filed an application underO.9, Rule 13, C.P.C. stating that she fell sick of diarrhea and vomiting and that she could not attend the Court and that therefore, the ex parte decree may be set aside. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the above application.

3. On consideration of the materials on record, the trial Court allowed the petition imposing certain conditions. The trial Court has passed order directing the defendants to deposit Rs.2 lakhs on or before 28.9.2000, failing which, the application would stand dismissed and the application was posted to 29.9.2000. It is seen that the conditional order was not complied with. Thereafter on 1.12.2000, the defendants have filed this revision challenging the above conditional order.

4. It is contended by the revision petitioners that the amount mentioned in the condition order is over and above the suit claim and that the trial Court ought to have considered the reasons assigned by the petitioner for non-appearance on the hearing date and that the conditional order passed by the trial Court is an onerous order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent contended that against the order passed underO.9, Rule 13, C.P.C., only an appeal will lie and that the revision is not maintainable and that in any event, the trial Court is empowered to impose certain conditions for setting aside the ex parte decree. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent cited number of decisions in support of their contentions.

6. Before proceeding further to decide the crucial point involved in the revision, it would be useful to refer to the nature of the order passed by the trial Court. It is seen that the revision petitioners filed application underO.9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court has allowed the petition imposing certain conditions to be fulfilled on or before 28.9.2000. As per the above conditional order, the revision petitioners have to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs into Court. It is also specifically stated in the order that the application would stand dismissed, if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated date. Now, the question, is: whether only an appeal would lie against the said order.

7. As perO.43, Rule 1(d), C.P.C. an appeal shall lie against the order under Rule 13 ofO.9 rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff that the order passed by the trial Court imposing conditions is a final order and that the appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of said order. On the question as to from which date, the order will become final, learned counsel relies upon a decision reported in Kotaiah v. Narasimham Kotaiah v. Narasimham Kotaiah v. Narasimham (1948)2 MLJ. 596: A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 469. The facts of the above case will show that the trial Court passed order on 3.7.1946 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount on or before 2.8.1946 failing which the petition will stand dismissed automatically. The court relying upon a decision reported in C.Ramayya v. M.Lakshmayya C.Ramayya v. M.Lakshmayya C.Ramayya v. M.Lakshmayya (1945)1 MLJ. 339: I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 203 has held thus:

“Where the petitioner had to do certain things, namely, to deposit costs, etc.,