JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code by Rajendra Kishore and another, defendants, against the order dated 3-12-1962 of the Additional Civil Judge of Aligarh, allowing the restoration application under Or. IX, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code and thereby setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. 2. The suit was originally fixed for hearing on 27-8-1962, but on the application of the plaintiff the hearing was adjourned to 16-10-1962. The adjournment was sought for on the ground that the plaintiff's witnesses had not come. On 16-10-1962 the plaintiff again moved an application for adjournment which was dismissed, but the case was ordered to be taken up after half an hour. When the case was taken up at 11-10 A.M., no one appeared from the side of the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed under Or. XVII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code The plaintiff, District Cooperative Development Federation Limited: Aligarh, instead of preferring an appeal against the order of dismissal, moved the present application for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoring the suit for a fresh hearing. 3. The learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that postponement of the hearing for half an hour amounted to an adjournment and as the adjournment was not at the instance of the plaintiff the suit could not be dismissed under Or. XVII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code The order of dismissal was thus deemed to be for default and hence the restoration application was entertained and the order of dismissal was set aside on payment of Rs. 100 as costs within one week. 4. The material point for consideration is whether the short postponement of the hearing of the suit for half an hour amounts to adjournment of the hearing within the meaning of Order XVII, Civil Procedure Code if not, the plaintiff could not be deemed to be absent and the order of dismissal shall not be for default. 5. Rules 1 and 2 of Order XVII, Civil Procedure Code make it clear that the adjournment of the hearing is, for another day. Sub-rule 1 of Rule I lays down that the Court may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule 2 thereof further provides that in every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit. Similarly, Or. Sub-rule 1 of Rule I lays down that the Court may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule 2 thereof further provides that in every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit. Similarly, Or. XVII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code speaks of the day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned. 'Day' contemplated by Rules 1 and 2 shall be a day other than the day on which the suit had been taken up before the grant of adjournment. There cannot be adjournment of the suit for hearing to a later part of the same day. That would be postponement for a short time, and not adjournment to another day. 6. In the instant case, the Court had decided to take up the case after half an hour and when the case was to be heard and disposed of the same (lay, it cannot be said that there was an adjournment, in any case, it is not an adjournment as contemplated by Or. XVII, Civil Procedure Code Consequently, in the eye of law, the plaintiff was present even though he absented himself when the suit was taken up after a short postponement of half an hour. The dismissal of the suit was thus not for default and the order was either under Or. XVII, Rule 3, C. P C. or amounted to a decree and in either case it was appealable and could not be set aside on a restoration application under Or. IX, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code being made. 7. The revision is hereby allowed with costs and the order under revision is set aside. It is further ordered that the restoration application under Order IX, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code shall stand dismissed with costs. It shall be open to the plaintiff to seek such other remedy may be ad vised.1eStay order is vacated.