JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Unnao in Misc. Case No. 83/2003, Prima Impex International and Ors. v. Super House Leather Limited.
2. It appears that the respondent Super House Leather Limited filed a suit against the revisionist for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant directing the defendants to comply the terms of contract and make payment as per schedule annexed to the plaint along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum with quarterly, rest, The suit was decreed ex parte for making the payment of Rs. 6,68,710. The revisionist moved an application under Order IX. Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 21.8.2002 and along with that application, moved another application 7C for staying the execution of the decree which was being executed in Execution Case No. 218/03 in the Mumbai Court. The application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. was kept pending and instead the learned Civil Judge passed a detailed order on the application 7C for staying the execution proceeding on 4.9.2003. The Civil Judge allowed the application for slaying the execution proceedings and directed that the execution of the decree shall remain stayed upto the disposal of the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on the condition that half of the amount of the decree is deposited in cash as security. It is against this order that the instant revision has been filed. Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows :
"Order IX, Rule 13.-- In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside, and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment in the Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit :
Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also :
Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim.
Explanation.--Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree."
3. The aforesaid provision goes to show that at the time of setting aside the decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Civil Judge is competent to impose such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit but in the instant case, it is apparent that the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. has not been decided and the condition of depositing half of the amount of the decree passed in a suit for mandatory injunction, has been imposed for staying the execution of the decree.
4. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned Civil Judge has taken recourse to the provision under Order XXI, Rule 29, C.P.C. as applicable in the State of U. P. is as follows :
"Order XXI, Rule 29.--Where a suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a decree of such court or a decree which is being executed by such court on the part of the person against whom a decree was passed or any person whose interest are affected by the decree or by any order made in execution thereof, the Court may, if it thinks fit, stay execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided :
Provided that in all the cases where execution of decree is stayed under this Rule, the Court shall require the person seeking such stay to furnish such security as it may deem fit."
5. The learned Civil Judge has taken support of decisions in Mordern Fuel Industry, Saharanpur and Anr. v. Indian Bank, 1996 (1) AWC 2.36 (NOC) : 1995 ACJ 1358 and Ramesh and one Anr. v. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., 2001 (Supp) RD 5 (SC).
6. After hearing both the parties, I am of the view that the trial court has not exercised the power of imposing condition as provided under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. because the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. was pending. So far as the provision under Order XXI, Rule 29, C.P.C. is concerned, which has been referred to in the judgment, I am of the view that the object of the provision under Order XXI, Rule 29, C.P.C. is to enable the judgment-debtor and the decree holder to adjust their claim against each other and to prevent multiplicity of the execution proceedings. I am also of the view that this rule has no application to the granting of injunction and no security, can be demanded in such applications on principles analogous to this rule. In the instant case, it was not a suit for money decree. The suit was filed for mandatory injunction in a circuitous way for the reason best known to the opposite party but the ex parte decree was passed as money decree. I am also of the view that this power must be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of justice requires. The decisions of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been relied on by the learned trial court relate to the suits which were filed for the money decree. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar Soni v. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., AIR 1979 All 370, in which it was held that where a party was not at fault and was saddled with a payment of huge amount as a condition for setting aside the ex parte decree, it would occasion a failure of justice. Consequently, it was open to the High Court to interfere in its revislonal power with the order of the court below. In the instant case that stage of deciding the application under Order IX, Rule 13 has not arrived but the Court has imposed the condition of making the half payment even at the stage of staying the execution while the service of the summons in the suit filed by the opposite party was alleged to be made on the wrong address and there was no service at all on the revisionist as alleged in the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. The Civil Judge has not been able to decide the question whether the defendant revisionist was at fault or not in not contesting the suit and without considering this aspect, a condition to deposit the amount of the decree has been imposed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred Narayanan v. Chidambaram, AIR 1940 Mad 585 ; Kunj Behart Lal alias Kunji Lal v. Kashi Prasad. AIR 1944 (31) All 236 ; Mohan Steels and Anr. v. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur, 1985 ACJ 465 and G. P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, 2000 (2) AWC 1294 (SC) : 2000 ALR 110. In all these judgments, it has been held that the Court cannot call upon the judgment debtor to furnish security before his prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree is to be considered. In so deciding, Judge goes in the teeth of the expressed provision of Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C.
8. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been amended in the State of U.P. by the Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) (Second) Ordinance, 2003 which provides that a revision lies before a superior court where the subordinate court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The superior court, may vary or reverse any order in case the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made.
9. I find that it is a case in which if this impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice by compelling the revisionist to make the payment without the contest of the claim of the opposite party in the suit.
10. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The portion of the impugned order by which the revisionist has been asked to furnish cash security of the half of the amount of the decree passed in Suit No. 36/2000 as a condition for staying the execution of the decree pending in the Mumbai court, is set aside. The rest of the order staying the execution of the decree shall remain intact till the disposal of the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.