JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a defendants application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure setting aside in decree dismissing the suit ex parte. The plaintiff respondent's suit was dismissed in his absence when he had gone with the Court's permission to call his Counsel from another Court. Subsequently he satisfied the court that his absence was not due to his fault, and the suit was restored. The defendant has come here in revision. 2. It is contended that the suit was dismissed on merits under Or. 17, R. 3, C.P.C., and could not therefore be restored under Or. 9, R. 13. 3. This argument has no substance. A suit is dismissed on merits only if there is an adjudication of the plaintiff's claim on merits. In this case there were no such adjudication. The order of dismissal runs as follows: - "Defendant counsel is present. Plaintiff counsel is not present. Plaintiff Sheo Narain is present. He wants to bring his counsel. Put up after fifteen minutes. It is now 11-35. Plaintiff again states that only five minutes time be allowed to bring his counsel ?" "It is now 11-42 A.M. plaintiff is absent. Defendant's counsel is present along with defendant. ORDER "Suit is dismissed with costs to defendant." It is plain that this is a dismissal for default. Where the Court observes that the plaintiff is absent and dismisses his suit without applying its mind to the merits, the dismissal is for default, even though the order does not use the word "default." 4. Mr. Ganesh Prasad contended that the suit was dismissed on an adjourned date, and therefore it could only have been dismissed under Or. 17, R. 3. This argument is contradicted by the language of Rule 3 as amended by this Court. It runs as follows: - "Court may proceed notwithstanding other, party fails to produce evidence, etc. Where in a case where Rule 2 does not apply any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails 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." 5. The words "where in a case where Rule 2 does not apply" indicate that Rule 3 contemplates two types of cases (1) where Rule 2 does not apply, and (2) where Rules 2 and 3 both apply. The first class of cases presents no difficulty, as Rule 3 alone can apply, but in the second though Rule 3 can apply it is excluded by rule 2. Therefore, before proceeding under Rule 3 the court must consider if the facts make rule 2 applicable, and if they do, forbear from proceeding with the case under Rule 3. Rule 2 runs as follows: - "Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed - 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 IX or make such other order as it thinks fit." 6. A party may be absent on the first date of hearing or on an adjourned date. The Code provides for both situations. In case of absence on the initial date of hearing, Or. IX becomes directly applicable, but in case of non-appearance on an adjourned date, Rule 2 of Order 17 makes Order IX applicable at the option of the Court: it empowers the Court to dispose of the suit under order IX or to pass any other order as it thinks fit. The Court is not bound to pass an order of dismissal but if it does, it shall be deemed to be an order under Order IX. In the present case the plaintiff was absent, and the Court noted his absence on the record and dismissed the suit. Obviously the suit was dismissed for default under Or. IX, Rule 8. 7. The application is rejected.