Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount. The suit proceeded and 11th October, 1995 was the date fixed for hearing. The suit was proceeding ex parte as the defendants had not put in appearance.

2. This attitude of the defendants who are the revisionists before this Court led to the passing of the impugned order dated 10.10.1997 imposing a condition that the defendant shall deposit a sum equivalent to 10% of the amount as claimed in the suit which would be refundable in the circumstances as defined in the impugned order itself.

3. This revision was preferred by the defendants questioning correctness of the said order as being beyond the purview of the Court to impose such a condition while exercising powers under Rule 7 of Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code, and this Court way back in the year 1997 stayed all further proceedings in the suit.

4. A stay vacation application and a counter-affidavit have been filed by the respondent-plaintiff bank explaining the attitude of the defendant-revisionists in lingering on the suit and not cooperating with the Court in the final hearing of the case. No rejoinder to the said counter-affid