ORDER K.N. Srivastava, J. - These are four connected appeals in which the same questions of law and fact arise for determination and therefore, they are being disposed of by one and the same judgment. 2. The Plaintiff-Appellant filed four suits against the Defendants-Respondents regarding different properties. One of the suits was for injunction, the other was for demolition, the third was for injunction and the fourth suit was for possession. All the suits were tried together and a date was fixed for the final hearing of these suits. The Plaintiff then moved an application for time to bring stay order from the High Court. 20 days' time was allowed. No such order was produced. All the four suits were, therefore, dismissed. 3. The Appellant filed four appeals before the lower appellate court taking the order of dismissal to have been passed Under Order 17 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure. The learned lower appellate court held that the order of dismissal was not on merit as required Under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and dismissed the appeals holding that the appeals did not lie. It is against this judgment that these four appeals have been filed. 4. The only question which has to be determined in these cases is as to whether the order of dismissal passed on 19th May, 1964 was one Under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC or Under Order 17 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that all the ingredients of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC applied to the facts of the case and therefore, the impugned order had been passed Under Order 17 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure. On 28th March, 1964, the trial court fixed 29th April, 1964, for final hearing of there cases. On 29th April 1964, the Plaintiff made an application with a prayer that he be allowed one month's time to bring stay order from the High Court. The Plaintiff was allowed 20 days time to bring the aforesaid order. As no order was brought from the High Court, the case was taken up on 19th May, 1964 and resulted in the dismissal of the suits. 5. The Plaintiff was allowed 20 days time to bring the aforesaid order. As no order was brought from the High Court, the case was taken up on 19th May, 1964 and resulted in the dismissal of the suits. 5. A case can be dismissed Under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC if a party concerned is allowed time and he fails to adduce his evidence or cause the attendance of the witnesses or to perform any such act necessary for the further progress of the case for which time had been allowed. In the instant case, it was argued that the order of the trial court allowing the Plaintiff to bring stay order was an act necessary for the further progress of the case and therefore, the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC applied to these cases. I am of the opinion that this argument has no force in it. Bringing a stay order does not, in any way, amount to an act necessary for the further progress of the case. If the Plaintiff failed to bring the stay order within the time allowed, the case should have been taken up and a date should have been fixed for final hearing instead if dismissing the case. The date on which the suit was dismissed was not a date for the final hearing nor it was or any of the acts mentioned in Order 17 R. 3 CPC for which time might have been granted to the Plaintiff. In this view of the matter, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the time allowed for bringing the stay order did not amount to an act necessary for the further progress of the case. In this view of mine, I am supported by a decision of the Nagpur High Court in AIR 1928 24 (Nagpur) . By the amendment introduced by this Court, Order 17 Rule 2 CPC and Order 17 Rule 3 CPC had been made exclusive to each other. A case which s covered Under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC cannot be created as one Under Order 17 Rule 3 GPC. By the amendment introduced by this Court, Order 17 Rule 2 CPC and Order 17 Rule 3 CPC had been made exclusive to each other. A case which s covered Under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC cannot be created as one Under Order 17 Rule 3 GPC. In :he instant case, Order 17 Rule 2 CPC has been fully applied to the facts of the case and therefore, there was no question of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC being applied to it in the result, the lower appellate court rightly held that the order in dispute vas not passed on merit and as such, the appeals were incompetent. 6. In the result, all the four appeals ire hereby dismissed with costs.