JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - This is an application in revision u/s 115 of the CPC 1908 (Act, No. v. of 1908) by the Plaintiff against the order of the Munsif of Bulandshahr setting aside the ex-parte decree which had been passed by him in favour of the Plaintiff on May 28, 1951 and restoring the case. 2. It appears that there were several adjournments in the case for want of time and May 28, 1951 was ultimately fixed for final disposal. On that date the Plaintiff and his counsel were present, but the Defendant was absent. An application was made by the Defendant's counsel for adjournment of the case on the ground that the Defendant was ill. This application was rejected and thereafter the counsel made a statement that he had no instructions and withdrew from the case. The learned Munsif then recorded the evidence of the Plaintiff and passed an ex-parte decree against the Defendant. The Defendant made an application for setting aside the decree on the ground that he was ill on the date of the final hearing and could not, therefore, attend the court. He filed an affidavit in support of the application. This affidavit was accepted by the learned Munsiff and he allowed the application, set aside the ex-parte decree and restored the case. 3. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the decree could not be deemed an ex-parte decree but on merits as it could not be said that the Defendant was absent on that date when an application for adjournment had been made on his behalf and had been rejected by the learned Munsiff. This contention was based on an Explanation which was added by the Allahabad High Court to Order 17 Rule 2, CPC and which ran as follows: No party shall be deemed to have failed to appear if he is either present in person, or is represented in court by his agent or pleader though engaged only for the purpose of making an application. 4. It was not disputed before me that on May 28, 1951 when the decree was passed by the learned Munsif this Explanation was in force. 4. It was not disputed before me that on May 28, 1951 when the decree was passed by the learned Munsif this Explanation was in force. There is no doubt that in view of the above Explanation it could not be said that the Defendant was absent on that date as he had engaged a counsel though only for the purpose of making an application for an adjournment. In Ram Saran Das Vs. Mallu and Others, AIR 1935 All 565 , it was held by Bennet, J. that where on the date fixed for hearing the Defendant's pleader asked for an adjournment but the court refused it and on the pleader saying that he had no further instructions a decree was passed, the proper remedy of the Defendant was by way of an appeal and not by an application for restoration under Order 17, Rule 2, CPC and the reason for it was that in view of the Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2, CPC it could not be said that the Defendant had failed to appear. 5. The next case is of Pirag Lal Vs. Rustam Singh, AIR 1936 All 658 . In this case there were several adjournments for want of time and ultimately the 18th April, 1935, was fixed for the hearing of the case. On that date an application was made by the Plaintiff's counsel for adjournment but it was rejected. Thereupon, the suit was dismissed for default. The Plaintiff made an application on April 29, 1935 under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal and the restoration of the suit. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsif on the ground that the decision was not ex-parte but on merits. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against this decision before the District Judge who allowed the appeal and restored the suit. The Defendant thereupon filed a revision in the High Court. It was held by Allsop, J. that in view of the Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 it could not be said that the Plaintiff was absent on the date of the final hearing and in the circumstances the order of dismissal could not be made under Order 9, CPC and would be considered to be one on merits and the proper remedy of the Plaintiff was to file an appeal against the decision. He, however, rejected the application for revision on the ground that there had been no miscarriage of justice as the only effect of the order of the learned District Judge was that the case would be tried on merits. 6. Another decision is of Jhandoo Mal and Sons Vs. Khalsa Singh Sahi, AIR 1940 All 305 . In this case the Defendant did not appear on the date fixed for the final hearing. An application was made by his counsel for adjournment of the case on the ground of the Defendant's illness. This application was rejected and thereupon an parte decree was passed against the Defendant. The Defendant filed an appeal against the decree in the court of the District Judge. He set aside the ex-parte decree and restored the case. It is against this order that an appeal was filed in the High Court. The question which arose before their Lordships was whether the decree which had originally been passed in the case was an ex-parte decree or a decree on merits. It was held by Bennet and Verma, JJ. that where the Defendant had engaged a pleader to make an application for adjournment and the pleader filed the same in court the Defendant must be deemed to be represented within the meaning of Order 17, Rule, 2 Explanation (Allahabad) and con(sic) when the application for adjournment was rejected and the suit was decreed ex-parte it was not open to the Defendant to make an application for the setting aside of the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC It was held that the proper remedy for the Defendant was by way of appeal from the decree u/s 105(1), CPC which entitled him in the appellate court to refer to the orders refusing to give an adjournment where those orders prevented him from filling his written statement and from producing his evidence. Their Lordships upheld the order of the learned District Judge remanding the case to the trial court for decision and dismissed the Appeal with costs. 7. In view of the above decisions the contention on behalf of the applicant that the learned Munsif had passed an incorrect order deciding the suit ex-parte instead of on merits appears to be correct. Their Lordships upheld the order of the learned District Judge remanding the case to the trial court for decision and dismissed the Appeal with costs. 7. In view of the above decisions the contention on behalf of the applicant that the learned Munsif had passed an incorrect order deciding the suit ex-parte instead of on merits appears to be correct. It cannot be said that the Defendant was not represented on the date the decree was passed as had engaged a counsel for making an application for adjournment; and where he has represented the provisions of Order 9 and Order 17, Rule 2 will not be applicable. These provisions will be applicable only when one of the parties to the suit has failed to appear. 8. It was conceded before me on behalf of the Plaintiff that the decision was not under Order 17, Rule 3, CPC Order 17 Rule 3 is applicable only where time is granted to any party for the purpose of any specified act in connection with the case. It implies that there must be an application by a party on which such an order is given. Where a case is adjourned not at the request of any party but for want of time, Order 17, Rule 3 will not be applicable. In B. Ram Dhani Singh Vs. Sunder Singh and Others , it was held by Kendall, J. that Order 17 Rule 3 was made specially applicable to a case where any party to whom time bad been granted failed to perform any act necessary for the future progress of the suit, that this rule was not applicable to the case where time was not granted to the applicant and that even it there was an adjournment and Order 17 was applicable to the case the court had under Order 17, Rule 2 jurisdiction to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in Order 9, CPC In the case before me no adjournment had been granted to the Defendant on his application for any particular purpose and in the circumstances Order 17, Rule 3 will not apply. 9. On behalf of the Respondent it was argued that he had been misled by the order of the court in passing an ex-parte decree against him. 9. On behalf of the Respondent it was argued that he had been misled by the order of the court in passing an ex-parte decree against him. It was also argued that if the court had passed a wrong order it is only that order which had to be taken into consideration in determining whether an appeal should be filed or an application form restoration should be made, It was also contended that it was not necessary for him to see what order should have actually been passed in the case as he was concerned only with the order which had actually been passed and not with what should have been passed. There is no doubt that the Defendant was misled by the order of the learned Munsif when he described the decree passed by him as an ex-parte decree. Without going into the merits of these contentions I am of opinion that the present case is not such in which I should interfere in the exercise of my revision all jurisdiction. I am not satisfied that there has been any miscarriage of justice. The result of the order is merely this that the parties will have an opportunity of contesting the real question at issue between them and the case will be decided on merits. If I were to interfere in revision the result would probably be that the Defendant would file an appeal against the order of the Munsif and would claim the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and it is likely that his appeal might succeed. The suit had been pending for several years and there had been several adjournments in the case for want of time. It seems to me that it would not be consistent with the principles of justice and equity to interfere in revision in the present case. 10. I, therefore, reject the application and direct the parties to bear their own costs.