ORDER This is an application in revision for Setting aside the dismissal of a suit under O. 17, R. 2 read with O. 9, R. 8 of the C.P.C. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner instituted civil suit No. 138 of 1956 for declaration of title to same land in the Court of the Munsiff and the learned Munsiff after framing the issues in the case on 7-2-1957 adjourned the case to 28-3-1957 for hearing evidence etc. On 28-3-1957, the plaintiffs counsel appeared and filed an application for adjournment on the ground that M. Mangi Singh a relation of plaintiff had come and informed him that the plaintiff had gone to the hills in Churachandpur for some work but had not returned. The learned Munsiff wanted an affidavit to be filed in support of the petition but that was not done even though Mangi Singh happened to be present. One of the defendants, however, filed an affidavit that the plaintiff was at Moirang where the parties reside on 26-3-1957. The learned Munsiff then rejected the petition for adjournment. Thereupon the counsel of the plaintiff expressed his unreadiness and inability to conduct the case, because no witnesses were present on the side of the plaintiff and none were summoned. The defendant was present and his witnesses were also present. In these circumstances the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit as already stated above and the plaintiff has come up to this Court in revision against that order, with" out applying under O. 9, R. 9 of the C.P.C. for a restoration of the suit. 3. It is not disputed that O. 17, R. 2 governed the case. It is also clear that when the counsel of the plaintiff expressed his inability to proceed with the suit on the application for adjournment being rejected, he ceased to appear on behalf of the plaintiff from that stage onwards, because appearance by Pleader necessarily means and implies appearance by a Pleader duly instructed to conduct the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases which are cited in the commentary at page 644 of Mullas C.P.C., 12th Edition, in which it was held that in such circumstances it must be held that the plaintiff had appeared by a Pleader so as not to attract the operation of Rr. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases which are cited in the commentary at page 644 of Mullas C.P.C., 12th Edition, in which it was held that in such circumstances it must be held that the plaintiff had appeared by a Pleader so as not to attract the operation of Rr. 8 and 9 of O. 9 But these cases which were of a time before 3908 were discussed in Satish Chandra v. Ahara Prasad, ILR 34 Cal 403, and the view taken in that case, which WAS a Full Bench case, was that an appearance by a counsel who is instructed only to apply for an adjournment which is refused is not appearance within the meaning of the C.P.C. The view taken in other cases after the passing of Act of 1908 is also the same and Mulla also makes a reference to the same at page 643. 4. The next contention advanced was that the Court was not justified in disposing of the suit under O. 9 and should have proceeded to dispose of the suit on merits. There is obviously no force in this contention, in the face of the language of O. 17, R. 2. That rule empowers the Court to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by O. 9 or to make such other order as it thinks fit and the Court would be exercising its discretion correctly in favour of the other course only where on the record the plaintiff has already made a case which if uncontradicted would entitle him to a decree. It cannot therefore, be said that the learned Munsiff exercised the discretion vested in him under R. 2 of O. 17 in an improper way, because in the present case, the plaintiff had yet to prove his case. 5. The remedy then open to the petitioner clearly was the one which is provided by R. 9 of O. 9, but he did not avail of it and instead of it has come to this Court in revision. It is well established that this Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction in revision when there was another clear cut remedy open to the applicant and he has failed to pursue it. It is well established that this Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction in revision when there was another clear cut remedy open to the applicant and he has failed to pursue it. Besides that even if this Court were to consider that matter in revision, what is the material on which this Court can act and pronounce the order of the learned Munsiff to be wrong ? If the plaintiff had applied under O. 9, R. 9 he would have got a chance to adduce evidence in support of the reasons due to which hg could not appear and instruct his Pleader, and also could not produce his witnesses on the date of trial, and that material would have been available to the appellate and revisional Courts in case an appeal or revision was filed. But the plaintiff has to thank himself alone for the absence of it. There is thus nothing before this Court on which it can say that the order of the learned Munsiff was wrong unless it is prepared to accept the proposition that the trial Court is bound to adjourn a case if the counsel of the party applies for it. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Lachmi Narain v. Ramsaran Tiwary, AIR 1925 Pat 433 and the Privy Council case reported in Lachmi Narain v. Balmakund Marwary, 81 Ind Cas 747 : (AIR 1924 PC 198), but those cases related to a stage after the passing of the preliminary decree and are therefore distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 7. The result is that this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 10/-. Revision dismissed.