Judgment :- 1. The order challenged in this appeal is one on an application filed by the defendants in the suit to restore the suit said to have been decided ex parte. The suit was on a hypothecation bond. Issues were raised in the suit on 14-2-1977. The case was adjourned to 26-2-1977 for production of records and witness schedule. On that day additional point was raised. Consequent upon the stay received from the High Court the suit was not posted thereafter. The case came up thereafter posted for trial in the special list on 16-11-1977. On that day it was adjourned to 25-11-1977 and in the meanwhile it was transferred to the District Court from the Sub Court. The case was adjourned for trial to 20-12-1977 and the B diary shows that from there it was adjourned to 22-12-1977, 5-1-1978, 27-1-1978 and 31-1-1978. All these do not appear to be adjournments at the request of the defendants. The diary does not indicate this and we should assume that the diary reflects the true state of affairs. We are not told otherwise. On 14-2-1978 the case was adjourned to 24-2-1978 and on 24-2-1978 the case was adjourned to 28-2-1978 and on that day the case was adjourned to 14-3-1978. These adjournments also do not appear to be on the application of any party. On 14-3-1978 the diary shows that one witness of the plaintiff was examined, defendants 1 to 7 were absent and the case was adjourned to 17-3-1978 for disposal on which date it was disposed of. Therefore on 14-3-1978 the case did not come up posted to that day on the application of the defendant. The court had not granted any time to defendants to do any particular act which the defendants had failed to do on that date. It is only when the court directs the doing of an act and the party fails to do that act a disposal of the case under 0.17 R.3 is called for. In this connection we may refer to the decision in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC. 993). Therefore the disposal was not one under 0.17 R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure though it purported to be on the merits. 2. When the suit was decreed against the defendants they filed an application on 22-5-1978 to set aside the ex-parte decree. 993). Therefore the disposal was not one under 0.17 R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure though it purported to be on the merits. 2. When the suit was decreed against the defendants they filed an application on 22-5-1978 to set aside the ex-parte decree. That was rejected despite the fact that the plaintiff did not oppose the application and the court noticed the fact that the plaintiff did not so oppose. 3. The Court below mentioned in its order, limitation as a ground for dismissing the application. It is sard that the petition was filed beyond 30 days and no exemption is sought in the petition. It is evident that 30 days time for filing an application under 0.9 R.13 of the Code expired during vacation. On the opening day defendants filed the petition under 0.9 R.13 of the Code. The Court should have noticed this before it observed that there was no application for excusing the delay. If an application was filed on the re-opening day no question of delay arises. 4. The court below seems to think that the disposal being on the merits an application under 0.9. R.13 would not be sustainable. An application as not barred merely because the disposal purports to be on the merits. If it falls under 0.17 R.3 there is a bar to an application under 0.9. R.13 of the Code. In order that it should fall under 0.17 R.3 it is necessary that the case was adjourned at the request of the party and it was so adjourned for the purpose of doing an act by the party. In this case there is no such circumstance. Hence there is no bar to entertain the application. 5. On the merits there is no reason to reject the defendant's case. He had explained the default. The application was not opposed. That should go a long way in the Court assessing the truth or otherwise of the defendants' explanation, for, the party who is aggrieved by any grant of the application of the defendants must necessarily be the plaintiff and his attitude is not irrelevant. There is no reason why the case of the defendants should be disbelieved. The B diary does not reflect what the court has said as to what happened on 14-3-1978 Possibly the B diary did not do justice to the order sheet. There is no reason why the case of the defendants should be disbelieved. The B diary does not reflect what the court has said as to what happened on 14-3-1978 Possibly the B diary did not do justice to the order sheet. But that is not mentioned in the order. Even if counsel was present and he did not cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff, that by itself is no ground to hold that the petition should not be allowed. In these circumstances we allow the appeal, set aside the ex-parte decree and restore the suit to file. 6. Before we close we must observe that the preparation of the B diary is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The case may be adjourned from time to time. But it must be for some reason. If it is on the application of either party that must be seen from the diary. If it is not on the application of either party but by the court on its own, that must be reflected in the diary. Evidently the B diary shows lack of supervision on the part of those whose duty is to see that proper B diary is prepared in each case. We must say that we get no assistance from the B diary in this case and if the B diaries are prepared in this manner it is only sheer waste of time without any use to the court, appellate or revisional. The attention of the District Judge concerned is drawn to this matter and he is directed to see that B diaries are prepared properly. This appeal is allowed as above. No costs. Allowed.