ORDER The petitioner as plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 5 of 1956 for damages against the respondents and claimed a sum of Rs. 2,205/47/-. His case was that he was appointed as a constable on 1-9-47, was promoted as Head constable on 23-1-48 and again as an Assistant Sub-Inspector on 23-1-150, but that on 13-8-55, the 1st respondent wrongfully dismissed him from service through the Inspector-General of Police, Manipur and hence he was entitled to damages. The respondents in their written statement stated that the petitioner held office at the pleasure of the respondents; that still departmental proceedings in which distinct charges were framed were held against the petitioner and he was given full opportunity to explain the charges and he was dismissed from service after such regular enquiry and hence he was not liable for any damages. Issues were framed in the suit and the suit was posted for final hearing to 16-4-58. The petitioner was not ready on that date and applied for adjournment stating that he wanted to obtain a copy of his appointment order and produce it in Court. The Court granted his prayer and adjourned the case to 16-7-58, thereby giving him three months time. On that date, the petitioner again moved another application for adjournment on the ground that he had not been able to get a copy of the appointment order. But the Court refused to allow further time. The Court then proceeded under Order 17 R. 3 C. P. C. which provided that where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted failed to produce his evidence or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default proceed to decide the suit forthwith. Neither the petitioner nor his pleader were ready to produce any evidence. In fact, I find that the petitioner had not produced any document in the suit or summoned any witness to give evidence for the hearing on 16-7-58. Thus, the Court had no material before it in support of the petitioners case that he was wrongfully dismissed from service and that he was entitled to damages. Hence, the suit was dismissed under Order 17 R. 3 C. P. C. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. Thus, the Court had no material before it in support of the petitioners case that he was wrongfully dismissed from service and that he was entitled to damages. Hence, the suit was dismissed under Order 17 R. 3 C. P. C. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. But the District Judge refused to interfere in appeal as he was satisfied that the lower Court acted rightly under Order 17 R. 3 C. P. C. in dismissing the suit and in not granting further time to produce the document for which time was requested by the petitioner. Against the said order in appeal, the present revision petition has been filed. 2. What was argued in revision was firstly that Order 17 Rule 3 C. P. C. should not have been applied by the lower Court under the circumstances of this case and further that in any event the prayer of the petitioner for further time to produce the appointment order should have been granted and the suit should not have been dismissed. J am afraid neither of these arguments can stand. For the petitioner reliance was placed on the decision Sonaullah v. Sultan Jan, AIR 1962 J and K 21, in which there is an observation that the words in Order 17 Rule 3 "the Court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith" suggest that the case must be one where in spite of the default of a party, it must have been possible for the Court to come to a decision of the suit and the words "decide the suit" cannot be taken as tantamount to dismissing the suit for default and that it can only mean to decide the suit on merits on the material available before the Court.