( 1 ) ORIGINAL Suit No. 65 of 1988 was filed by Canara Bank against M/s. Rajhans Khandsari Udyog and others for realisation of a sum of Rs. Nine Lakhs and odd (Rs. 10 lakhs approximately) with interest etc. and in case of default in payment for sale of the properties mortgaged for secured the loan.

( 2 ) ON 3-4-1989 when the suit was called out the plaintiff was present. The defendant was absent and had not, till that date, filed any written statement although by an order dated 24-3-1989 they were directed to file the written statement on 3-4-1989 in terms of a prayer made by them. The Court, accordingly, decided to proceed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and it decreed the suit under the said provisions.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the defendants came up with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. Both the parties were heard on this application and by an order dated 29-9-1995 the learned trial Court allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on condition that within 15 days from the date of the order the defendants were to deposit 25 per cent of the sum under demand in the suit, amounting to Rs. 2,45,250. 00, and to file written statement within 16-10-1995. In case of failure of these conditions, the order setting aside the ex parte decree would be deemed automatically to have been vacated. Against this order this application was filed initially as a First Appeal from order which was registered as FAFO No. 971 of 1995 under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of the CPC. It is worth mention at this place that the time for filing the written statement was upto 16-10-1995, as indicated in the order dated 29-9-1995. The FAFO was also filed on 16-10-1995. In terms of the valuation of the FAFO it was placed before the Division Bench. When the matter came up before the Division Bench for hearing, the Court expressed its views that the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of the CPC was not maintainable as, by the impugned order, the appellants prayer under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was allowed. On the prayer of the appellants, they were permitted to convert the application as one under Section 115 CPC. They did so and the application was renumbered as Civil Revision No. 70 of 1996.

( 4 ) IT was stated that imposition of the condition of payment of one-fourth of the sum under demand was an unreasonable one and that amounted to virtual refusal of the relief of restoration. The second aspect of this argument, that the prayer for restoration was denied in fact due to the imposition of the condition, may not be looked into because a Division Bench of this Court has already given an opinion that the application was allowed and so no appeal would lie. The learned counsel, however, insisted that in this revisional application the Court could always see if the condition was unreasonable one and hence suffered from material irregularity. It was further contended that the ex parte decree in question was recorded under Order 8, Rule 10 and there was no discussion of the merits of the claim of plaintiffs. I am afraid, this point would be beyond the scope of the present revision application. In this revision under Section 115 CPC this Court is supposed to see to the illegality or otherwise of the impugned order dated 29-9-95 and has further to see if the conditions for action under Section 115 CPC are there to require an interference by this Court in the impugned order.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel relied on a decision reported in AIR 1994 All 193. This decision really touches the true import or Order 8, Rule 10 CPC and the revision was directed against an ex parte decree in a small cause Court suit. The ex parte decree was sought to be set aside in a restoration application and that application was also rejected. Under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act, both the orders were open to revision and the Court had held that even for an ex parte decree under Order 8, Rule 10 CPC the Court should have examined the plai