JUDGMENT Jagmohan Lal, J. - This revision arises out of suit which was fixed for hearing in the court of Munsif on 29-9-1966. On that date the plaintiff was present but the defendant was absent and his counsel reported that he had no instructions from his client. The learned Munsif therefore proceeded ex parte the suit. The defendant then applied under order 9, rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside this ex parte decree. The application was supported by an affidavit in which it was alleged that the defendant had fallen ill and for that reason as could not come to court on the date of hearing. No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Munsif, however, rejected this application under Order 9, rule 13 on the ground that since the defendant had engaged a lawyer and his engagement shall be deemed to continue till the conclusion of the suit as provided in Order 3, rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the mere physical presence of the lawyer on that date would amount to the presence of the defendant and as such the decree cannot be said to have been passed ex parte under Order 9, rule 6, C. P. The defendant filed an appeal against that order. The lower appellate court took a different view in the matter and held that on the facts of the case Order 3, rule 4 had no application. That court further recorded a finding of fact that the defendant had been prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in court on the date fixed for hearing of the suit. The lower appellate court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree. It is against that order that this revision has been filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the applicant. He contends that since the defendant's counsel was present in court his presence would be deemed to be the presence of the defendant and as such this decree cannot be said to have been passed ex parte. This contention cannot be accepted for the obvious reason that Order 9, rule 6 speaks about the appearance of the defendant and provides that if the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing, the court can decide the suit ex parte. This contention cannot be accepted for the obvious reason that Order 9, rule 6 speaks about the appearance of the defendant and provides that if the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing, the court can decide the suit ex parte. It was under this provision that the suit was decreed ex parte by the trial court in the absence of the defendant. It is true that even if the defendant is not personally present but is present through a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material questions relating to the suit as contemplated by Order 5, rule 1(2) (b), the appearance of the lawyer may amount to the appearance of the defendant for the purposes of Order 9, rule 6. But in this case the defendant was not represented by a pleader duly instructed on that date, because his counsel who was engaged by him under Order 3, rule 4, C.P.C. had clearly stated that he had no instructions from the defendant. Under these circumstances the decree that was passed by the trial court on 29-9-1966 was an ex parte decree which could be set aside on the application of the defendant made under Order 9, rule 13, C.P.C. if sufficient cause was shown to the satisfaction of the court for his non-appearance on that date. On this point, the lower court has recorded a finding of fact that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendant. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the lower appellate court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety so as to require an interference by this Court in this revision. The revision is dismissed. There will be no order for costs as the other side has not put in appearance. The stay order dated 21-11-1969 is discharged.