This application in revision against an order of the learned Tehsildar and Revenue Officer, Ajmer, dated 19.6.1956 in a proceeding under sec 32 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, was filed before the learned Chief Commissioner, Ajmer Merwara under sec. 187 of said Act, and has come up for hearing before us under the Rajasthan Adaptation of Laws (of State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1956. Adaptation 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record of the case. The learned counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this revision on the ground that the impugned order of the Tehsildar did not suffer from any of the disabilities mentioned in sec. 187 of the Act It was urged that as the proceeding started before the Tehsildar under sec. 32 of the Act and on the last date of hearing the applicant did not appear despite notice the trial court was competent to dismiss the application in default under order 9, Rule 8 read with Order 17 Rule 2 C.P.C. and that in doing so it neither acted illegally nor with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 3. The contention of the applicant, however, is that after framing necessary issues the trial court heard arguments on the legal issue viz. whether the court had jurisdiction to try this case, on 30.5.1956 and fixed 19.6.1956 for pronouncing its decision on the said issue On this date instead of giving its decision the learned court dismissed the suit on account of non-appearance of the applicant. It was argued that as the case was adjourned only for announcing a decision on merits on one of the issues it was not within the competence of the learned court to have dismissed it in default, and that the said order being an order under Order 17, Rule 2, C. P. C. a revision was competent. It was argued that as the case was adjourned only for announcing a decision on merits on one of the issues it was not within the competence of the learned court to have dismissed it in default, and that the said order being an order under Order 17, Rule 2, C. P. C. a revision was competent. We have considered the provisions of O. 9, R. 8 as well as O. 17, R. 2, C.P.C. O. 17, R. 2, C.P.C. lays down that where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order 9 make such other order as it thinks fit. According to this on the adjourned date of hearing if the applicant was absent, the court had a discretion either to dismiss his application in default or to have decided the issue on merits. As the court had heard arguments of both the parties on the aforesaid vital issue, it should not have dismissed the suit in default, but the correct procedure was to have given its decision on the issue on merits. In opting the former procedure it clearly acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction within the meaning of sec. 187 of the Act and, therefore, it is a fit case for interfering in revision The preliminary objection of the opposite party is, therefore, ruled out. We, therefore, allow the application, set aside the order of the learned Tehsildar and send the case back to him with the direction that he should decide issue No. 4 and then if necessary proceed further with the trial of the application in accordance with the provisions of law.