JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. These are two first appeals from order filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (t) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since common questions of law arise in both these appeals both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Suit No. 13 of 1972 was filed by Mujibullah Khan. Suit No. 59 of 1972 was filed by Sri Ehsan Ullah Khan. Both these suits were dismissed by the trial court. During the pendency of the suits, both Ehsan Ullah Khan and Mujibullah Khan have died and their heirs have been brought on record. Against the judgments passed in suit Nos. 13 of 1972 and 59 of 1972, two appeals were filed in the court below. The appeal arising out of suit No. 59 of 1972 was numbered as civil appeal No. 72 of 1972 and the appeal arising out of suit No. 13 of 1972 was numbered as civil appeal No. 71 of 1972. Both these appeals came up for hearing before the lower appellate court who on 30th July, 1973, dismissed both these appeals in default. Applications were made for restoration of the appeals to their original numbers under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC. Both the applications were dismissed by separate judgments by the Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur by order dated 31-8-1977. Against the judgments dated 31-8-1977 two appeals have been filed in this court. First Appeal From Order No. 469 of 1977 arises out of suit No. 13 of 1972 and First Appeal From Order No. 370 of 1.977 arises out of suit No. 59 of 1972. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the view taken by the court below that the application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC is not maintainable is manifestly erroneous. 4. The orders which were passed by the lower appellate court dismissing both the appeals were in the following terms : "The appeal is dismissed in default with costs to the respondents." On 30th July 1973 when the lower appellate court called on the appeals for hearing, the appellants' counsel made applications for adjournment which were rejected by the appellate court. Thereafter the counsel for the appellants did not argue the appeals and stated before the court that he had no instructions to argue the appeals. Thereafter the counsel for the appellants did not argue the appeals and stated before the court that he had no instructions to argue the appeals. Since the counsel for the appellants withdrew from the appeals, the court passed the order which has been quoted above on the 30th of July, 1973. 5. The question that arises in this case for consideration is that the order dated 30th July, 1973 will be deemed to be an order dismissing the appeals on merit or in default for non-appearance of the appellants. 6. In Badri Pandey v. Ram Chandra, 1975 ALJ 659 Hon'ble G. C. Mathur, J. (as he then was) had an occasion to consider this question. It was held by him as follows :- "Appearance merely for seeking an adjournment is not appearance at the hearing of the suit or the appeal. This is the sense in which the word " appears " and the expression " does not appear " have been used in Rule 17 of Order 41. Therefore, in the present case when the lawyer for the respondents in the appeal before the Civil Judge, appeared and asked for adjournment of the hearing and, when that was refused, did not take any part in the hearing of the appeal, it must be held that they did not appear and that the appeal was heard and decided ex-parte against them. An application under Order 41, Rule 21 was, therefore, maintainable for setting aside the ex-parte judgment on the ground that the respondents were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing." I fully agree with the view expressed by Hon'ble G. C. Mathur, J. In the case before Hon'ble G. C. Mathur, J. it was the respondent who had not appeared before the court. In the instant case, they were the appellants who had not appeared after the adjournment applications were rejected. In the circumstances it would be clearly a case which comes under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 (1) CPC where the appellants did not appear when the appeal was called on for hearing. Since this is a case where Rule 17 (1) of Order 4l CPC applies, an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC was clearly maintainable. The view taken by the lower appellate court, in my opinion is not correct in law. 7. Since this is a case where Rule 17 (1) of Order 4l CPC applies, an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC was clearly maintainable. The view taken by the lower appellate court, in my opinion is not correct in law. 7. In the result, these appeals are liable to be allowed. I accordingly allow both the appeals and direct the lower appellate court to consider the applications under Order .41 Rule 19 CPC on merits. These applications should be disposed of as far as possible within three months from the date of the receipt of the records from this court. Office is directed to send back the records to the court below forthwith. Costs of these appeals shall be borne by the parties.