JUDGMENT Agarwala, J. - This is an application in revision against an order dismissing an appeal from the order of the Munsif rejecting an application made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are as follows. 2. On 5-8-1949, a suit was filed by the opposite parties for a declaration that a certain deed of mortgage was null and void. Several dates for the filing of the written statement were fixed. After the filing of the written statement, issues were struck on 17-3-1950, and then 12-10-1950 was fixed for final hearing. This was the first date of final hearing. On that date the Defendant and his counsel appeared in court and an application was made on behalf of the Defendant-applicant for adjournment. This application not being supported by an affidavit was dismissed by the learned Munsif. Thereupon both the Defendant-applicant and his counsel went away from the court room. According to the affidavit filed by the Defendant-applicant in the court below, he had gone out of the court-room while the application for adjournment was being discussed and when he returned he found that the case had already been heard and decided. But this allegation does not appear to have been accepted by the trial court. However that may be, the Munsif deliberately decided the case on the merits writing a full judgment and holding that there was no evidence adduced on behalf of the Defendant. It is clear from his order that the order was not an ex parte order. The Defendant then made an application for setting aside this judgment under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Munsif dismissed this application on the ground that the case had been decided on the merits under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. The Defendant applicant went up in appeal to the lower appellate court. That court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that no application under Order 9, Rule 13 lay when the case had not been decided ex parte. The Defendant applicant went up in appeal to the lower appellate court. That court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that no application under Order 9, Rule 13 lay when the case had not been decided ex parte. Against that order the applicant has filed the present petition in revision u/s 115, CPC and his contention is that the trial court was not authorised to proceed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the applicant and his counsel had retired from the case upon their application for adjournment having been dismissed. 3. I have no doubt that Order 17, Rule 3 did not apply to the case because this rule applies only when the case had been adjourned at the request of a party for a particular purpose. 12-10-1950 was the first date of final hearing and was not an adjourned date. The trial court was, therefore, in error in thinking that Order 17, Rule 3, applied to this case. But this, however, does not dispose of the matter. 4. As already observed, the Defendant was present in the court on the date of final hearing. His counsel was also present. An application for adjournment was made which was refused. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Defendant was absent on the date of hearing. His withdrawal from the case at a later stage does not affect his appearance in court when the case was called on for hearing. The provisions of Order 9, Rule 6 apply when the Plaintiff appears and the Defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing. In such a case if it is proved that the summons was duly served the court may proceed ex parte and may decide the suit against the Defendant on the evidence of the Plaintiff alone. The phrase "when the suit is called on for hearing" means "when the suit is first called on for hearing on the date fixed for hearing." If the Defendant is present when the suit is first called on for hearing, he will not be deemed to have failed to appear within the meaning of Rule 6 of Order 9, simply because after his application for adjournment is dismissed, he disappears from the court room. Similarly under Rule 11 of Order 9, "where there are more Defendants than one, and one or more of them appear, and the others do not appear, the suit shall proceed, and the court shall, at the time of pronouncing judgment, make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the Defendants who do not appear." Here, again, where a Defendant appears and makes an application for adjournment and then disappears from the court room, it cannot be said that he has not appeared. Rule 13 of Order 9 authorises a court to set aside a decree passed ex parte against a Defendant. Where a decree is not passed ex parte but is passed on the ground that the Defendant, though present when the suit was called on for hearing, does not produce his evidence, it cannot be said that the decree was passed ex parte; and if the decree was not passed ex parte, no application under Order 9, Rule 13 can be made. The proper remedy for the Defendant in such a case is to appeal from the decree. The case where the Defendant is absent, and his counsel appears but has instructions only for moving an application for adjournment, is quite different. A counsel is an agent of a party and his powers are limited by the instructions issued to him. He may or may not be given authority for appearing on behalf of a party for the conduct of the whole case. If the counsel is given authority only for the purpose of moving an application for adjournment, there is no appearance by him for the purpose of conducting the case and so the party, his principal, cannot be said to have appeared in court for the conduct of the case through him. It is by a fiction of law that a counsel's appearance in court on an adjourned date, even for the purpose of moving an application for adjournment, is taken under Order 17, Rule 2, as a full appearance by a party. But a party himself appearing in court does not appear in any limited capacity. He appears in his full capacity though he may retire after making an application for adjournment. 5. But a party himself appearing in court does not appear in any limited capacity. He appears in his full capacity though he may retire after making an application for adjournment. 5. Upon the facts of this case it is quite clear that the Defendant cannot be said to have failed to appear when the case was called on for hearing on 12-10-1950, and as such, no application under Rule 13 of Order 9, could be entertained. The application was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Munsif and the applicant's appeal was rightly dismissed by the lower appellate court. 6. There is no force in this revision. It is dismissed with costs. 7. This order will not debar the Defendant-applicant from filing an appeal against the original decree dated 12-10-1950.