JUDGMENT The short question involved in this first appeal is whether one of the appellants who remained absent when the appeal was heard and determined on merits is entitled to come in and ask for its re-admission under order 41 rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated that : Respondent No.1 of this appeal, Lala Singh brought a suit on a mortgage in the Court of the Additional Munsiff, against the present appellant Tombi Singh (legal representative of the mortgagor), Cholang Singh a subsequent transferee from Tombi Singh and another and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff on 10-7-1955. Tombi Singh and Cholang Singh then preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Manipur, Appellant Cholang Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and his minor son Giridhari Singh was brought on record in his place. After several adjournments the appeal came up for hearing before the learned District Judge on 22-11-1955. On that date appellant Tombi Singh and one of the respondents remained absent while the other parties were present, and as the order sheet of that date shows, the learned District Judge heard the appeal and passed a judgment that very day dismissing the appeal on merits. 3. On 29-11-1955 appellant Tombi Singh filed an application before the District Judge that he could not appear on 22-11-1955 when the appeal was heard, because he was ill, and therefore prayed for restoration of the appeal. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the appeal not being one under Order 41 rule 17, the application of the appellant Tombi Singh for restoration did not lie and his remedy was by an appeal against the decree that was passed on 22-11-1955. This appeal has been preferred against that order under order 43 rule 1(t). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to show any law in support of his contention and there is nothing in order 41, which debars the court from, hearing an appeal in the absence of one of the appellants. This appeal has been preferred against that order under order 43 rule 1(t). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to show any law in support of his contention and there is nothing in order 41, which debars the court from, hearing an appeal in the absence of one of the appellants. It follows, therefore, that the Appellate Court has the power to dispose of such an appeal on merits, leading to the consequence that the absentee appellant cannot come in under order 41 rule 19, for the reason that there was no dismissal as contemplated by rule 17, and his only remedy is to prefer an appeal against the decision on merits, so given. This appeal must, therefore, fail as it is incompetent. 5. In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.