JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J. 1. The defendants did not appear. The Court then adjourned the hearing until a dale fixed. On that occasion the plaintiff presented himself, but the Patwari was absent, and the defendants also made no appearance. The Court, thereupon summarily, dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. In doing so it has been supported by the lower appellate Court upon the ground that what was done, by the Assistant Collector, was done in the exercise of discretion, As I understand, the Patwari was there when the order for adjournment was made. 2. It seems certainly very hard upon the plaintiff, who had at first appeared with his evidence and found nobody there on the other side, in consequence of which the hearing was adjourned, to be penalised for non-prosecution of the case. This case falls within the ruling in Subbarayadu v. Chenchuramayya, [1900] I.L.R., 24 Mad., 200. I set aside the order which has been passed, and direct the Assistant Collector to hear and dispose of the case on the merits.