Short Note : 1. The applicants were plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 13-B of 1973, which they instituted against the non-applicants in the Court of the Civil Judge Class II, Thandla. After issues were settled, the case was fixed for evidence on 4-9-1973 but on that date the plaintiffs did not keep their evidence present. The trial Court, therefore, adjourned the case to 27-11-1973 and directed both the parties to keep their evidence present or if desired summon the evidence on payment of process fee, etc. On the adjourned date (27-11-1973) the plaintiffs were represented by their counsel. The defendants were also represented by their counsel and kept their witnesses present. The plaintiffs counsel again made an application for adjournment on the ground that the plaintiffs due to unavoidable circumstances could not remain present and that another adjournment to be granted to enable them to keep their witnesses present. This application was rejected as the learned trial Judge did not find any sufficient cause was prevented the plaintiffs from remaining present. As the burden of proving the issues framed between the parties was on the plaintiffs and they inspite of the opportunity given on 4-9-1973 did not keep the evidence present, the suit was dismissed for want of evidence Treating this dismissal as under rule 2 of Order 17, C.P.C. the plaintiffs submitted an application (Misc. Judicial Case No. 3 of 1974) for the restoration of the suit, which, the according to them, was dismissed for default. The learned trial Judge took view that the dismissal was not under rule 2 but under rule 3 of Order 17. The application was, accordingly rejected. An appeal by the plaintiffs against the said order was also dismissed on the same ground. The appellate order is now challenged by the present revision application. Held : The main question to be considered in this revision application is as to whether the order dated 21-11-1973 for dismissing the suit was under rule 2 or rule 3 of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. From the perusal of the order it is clear that on that date the plaintiffs counsel was present and submitted an application for adjournment being granted on the alleged ground that the plaintiffs were prevented by some sufficient cause from not only remaining present but also keeping their evidence present. From the perusal of the order it is clear that on that date the plaintiffs counsel was present and submitted an application for adjournment being granted on the alleged ground that the plaintiffs were prevented by some sufficient cause from not only remaining present but also keeping their evidence present. The plaintiffs counsel; after the rejection of this application, did not plead no instructions but appears to have remained present till the suit was dismissed for want to evidence. If the plaintiffs counsel had after the rejection of the said application pleaded no instruction and had not taken part in the proceedings of the date, then it could be said that the dismissal was under rule 2 and not rule 3 of Order 17, C.P.C. On the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be said to be erroneous or suffering from any defect of jurisdiction. Revision dismissed.