http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SIBARAM BARAL (SIMARAM BARAI)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   395        1996 SCALE  (5)287

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                    THE 10 DAY OF MAY 1996 Present:       Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy       Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Indrajeet Roy, Adv. Genl., Orissa, and P.N.Misra, Adv. for the appellant.                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: State of Orissa & Ors. V. Sibaram Baral (Simaram Barai)                          O R D E R      Though the  respondent had  been served  with notice on August 5, 1992, till date neither the unserved cover nor the acknowledgement  has   been  received   back.  Under   these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served.      Leave granted.      The only  question is:  whether,  the  High  Court  can direct the  appellant to  deposit the  decretal amount  with costs of  Rs.7,500/- as  a condition to setting aside the ex parte decree?  The respondent laid the suit to recover a sum of Rs.1,46,820/- against the appellants. The suit came to be decreed ex  parte. The  appellant has  filed an  application under Order  9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial  Court set  aside the  ex patre  decree subject to payment of  Rs. 50/-.  The High  Court in the impugned order dated January  8, 1992  in CR no 694/91 allowed the revision and set  aside the order of the trial Court and directed the appellants to  deposit the  decretal amount  and the  costs. Order 41 Rule 1(3) of CPC provides thus:      "Where  the  appeal  is  against  a      decree for  payment of  money,  the      appellant shall,  within such  time      as the  Appellate Court  may allow,      deposit the  amount disputed in the      appeal  or   c  such   security  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    respect thereof  as the  Court  may      think it."      When an appellate power is exercised on an appeal filed against the  decree of  the trial Court, the Court exercises judicial discretion to grant condition stay of the execution of money  decree resonably  based on fact situation. In this case, there  is no  appeal before  the High Court against ex parte decree  of the  trial Court  itself set  aside the  ex parte decree  subject to  the  payment  of  the  cost.  When revision was carried, the High Court properly considered the facts to  set aside  the ex parte decree and the case called for interference.  It  cannot  exceed  its  jurisdiction  in directing the  appellant  to  deposit  the  entire  decretal amount and  also the  cost of  Rs. 7.500/-.  The explanation given by  the state  is  well  justified  as  no  one  takes responsibility for  the lapses.  Each would pass the buck on the other  ultimately it  would be  the public justice which would   conquer   and   put   to   jeopardy.   Under   these circumstances, the  order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. no costs.