Short Note : 1. This revision arises on the following facts. The plaintiff applicant filed a suit which was fixed for hearing on 12th April 1973 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Harda. On that date at 11-30 A.M. the counsel for the plaintiff as also counsel for the defendant asked for some time for compromising the suit. Time was granted upto 12 noon when the counsel appeared before the Court and intimated that some further time be granted and the case be taken at 2-30 p.m. The Court acceded to this request and the hearing of the case was adjourned upto 2-30 p.m. When the case was taken at 2-30 p.m., the defendant and his counsel appeared, but neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared before the Court. The clerk of the plaintiff's counsel intimated the Court that the counsel had gone to Seoni Malwa and the case be taken up after 4 p.m. This request was not accepted. The Court examined the defendant. The defendant closed his evidence. As no one was present from the side of the plaintiff, his evidence was also closed. The defendant's counsel argued the case and the suit was dismissed on merits. A decree was also prepared dismissing the suit. The plaintiff then made an application under Order 9, rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit. This application was dismissed on the ground that as the suit was decided on merits under Order 17, rule 3 of the Code, the application for restoration was not maintainable. The same view was taken in appeal by the First Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad. Thereafter, the present revision was filed by the plaintiff. Held : Learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant has argued before me that when on 12th April 1973 at 2-30 p.m. neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared in Court, the suit could not have been decided under Order 17, rule 3 and the Court should have proceeded under Order 17, rule 2. This argument appears to be correct and is fortified by a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Ramrao v. Shantibai ( 1977 JLJ 147 ). But acceptance of this legal position does not help the plaintiff-applicant. This argument appears to be correct and is fortified by a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Ramrao v. Shantibai ( 1977 JLJ 147 ). But acceptance of this legal position does not help the plaintiff-applicant. Although the trial Court had no authority to proceed, in the circumstances of the case under Order 17, rule 3, the Court did proceed under that provision and delivered a judgment on merits. The Court has no doubt made no reference to Order 17, rule 3 specifically but it is clear from reading of the order-sheet of 12th April 1973 and the judgment and decree passed by the Court on that date that the Court did proceed under Order 17, rule 3 and decided the case on merits. It is pertinent in this connection that the defendant's evidence was recorded, arguments were heard and an elaborate judgment was delivered deciding each and every issue on merits and the decree followed the judgment. When the suit was decided on merits under Order 17, rule 3, the only remedy available to the plaintiff-applicant was of going up in appeal against the decree. In Govardhan v. Ganesh (1962 JLJ 760) it was held that when a Court proceeded to decide a suit on merits under Order 17, rule 3, the only remedy open to the plaintiff was of filing an appeal even though the Court should not have proceeded under that provision and the suit should have been dismissed under Order 17, rule 2. Similar view was taken in Maruti v. Gangadhar Rao (1964 JLJ SN 76). In my opinion, the Courts below were right that the remedy of the plaintiff-applicant was of filing an appeal against the decree and not of making an application under Order 9, rule 9 for restoration of the suit. Revision dismissed.