This is a revision against an appellate orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Rajasthan, dated 31.1.1955 in a case relating to entries in the parcha chakbandi. 2. The only point involved for determination in this revision is as to whether the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal on merits when the appellant was absent, as he had gone away to call his counsel. As laid down in Order 41, Rule 17, C.P.C. when on the date fixed for hearing the appellant does not appear the court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. There is a conflict of opinion as to whether the discretion given by the word may extends to adjourning the appeal or deciding it on merits. As pointed out by the learned authors, Chitley and Rao in their commentary 1950 Edition, in note No. 4, Order 41, Rule 17, page 3338, it has been held by the High Courts of Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras and Rangoon that the fact that the court is not bound to dismiss an appeal in default does not enable it to dismiss the appeal on the merits, but only to adjourn it to another date. The only authority against this view is to be found in A.I.R. 1921 Patna 325. The majority of the Indian High Courts have, however, held that an appeal cannot be dismissed on merits in the absence of the appellant and we find ourselves in respectful agreement with this view. There has thus been a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower appellate court. We would, therefore, allow this revision set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and remand the case back to him with the direction that the appeal filed before him be re-heard and decided afresh in accordance with law.