Ex parte decree set aside conditionally, with merits-based trial allowed only after compliance with deposit terms.

An ex parte decree in a specific performance suit was reopened because the record raised doubt about effective notice and participation, and litigation was preferred to be decided on merits rather than by default. Relief was made conditional to protect the decree-holder's position after action had already been taken on the decree: the defendant was allowed to contest the suit only on deposit of the directed amounts within the stipulated time, with failure resulting in dismissal of the appeal. The approach balanced fairness in hearing the defence with reimbursement of expenses and prompt disposal of the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte decree and the order setting it aside should be interfered with and the defendant should be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance. Although the decree-holder contended that sufficient opportunity had been given and that the defendant had knowledge of the proceedings earlier, the record showed circumstances creating doubt about effective notice and participation. The Court emphasised that litigation should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than by default. At the same time, the plaintiff had already acted on the decree, and the balance of justice required that any reopening of the matter be made conditional upon reimbursement of the expenses incurred and prompt disposal of the suit. The Court therefore granted relief on terms, subject to deposit of specified amounts within time, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed.

Conclusion: The ex parte decree was set aside conditionally and the appellant was permitted to contest the suit on merits, subject to deposit of the directed amounts within the stipulated time.

---