D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) In Original Suit No. 11 of 1987, Civil Judge, Allahabad, exercising powers under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the 'Code'), passed an order dated 22nd May, 1987 directing the appellants in this Court to refund an amount of Rs. 400/ - to the defendant-respondents. The appellants felt aggrieved by the said order and preferred and appeal under Section 96 of the Code, being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 285 of 1987. It appears, this appeal was dismissed on 7th March, 1989 for default of appearance of the appellants by the VII Addl. District Judge. Allahabad. The appellants applied for re-admission of the appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, by means of an order dated 2nd September, 1989, allowed the application of the appellants subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 5000/- within 15 days from the date of the order. The learned judge also directed that in case of failure to make the said deposit the application for re-admission of the appeal would stand dismissed. The appellants did not challenged this order and allowed 15 days' time stipulated for making deposit of Rs. 5000/- in the order dated 2nd September, 1989 to lapse. Later on the appellants moved an application 9-C praying for two months time to bring stay order. The learned counsel for the appellants stated before the court below that the appellants were not in mood to deposit the amount directed to be deposited by the order dated 2nd September, 1989 as a condition precedent for allowing the application to re-admit the appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge by means of the order dated 16th October, 1989, rejected the said application and directed the application of the appellants 3-C seeking re-admission of the appeal to stand dismissed as stipulated in the order dated 2nd September, 1989.
(2.) While rejecting the application 9-C, the court below observed that there was no justification to grant time. It further observed that the appellants were adamant to delay proceedings. The observations of the court below do not appear to be without force. The conduct of the appellants does support these observations. In any case, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order requiring the appellants to make deposit of Rs. 5000/- does not appear to be illegal as deposit, is obviously, not required to be made by way of costs for allowing the application to re-admit the appeal but appears to be by way of security-deposit to meet the costs of the other side in the event of failure of the appeal of the appellants.
(3.) For what has been said above, this court is clearly of the opinion that the orders, impugned in the instant appeal, are perfectly valid and do not warrant any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. Appeal dismissed.;