JUDGMENT 1. A very short point is involved in this writ petition. A suit for possession of agricultural land, bearing Khasra No. 27 measuring 30 bighas 2 biswas, situated in village Kheru Badi, Teshil Rajgarh, District Churu, was filed by Ali Mohd. in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgarh against the petitioner Hari Singh. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgarh by his order dated july 26, 1965 decreed the suit for possession of the aforesaid agricultural land. The petitioner Had Singh filed an appeal in the court of Revenue Appellate Authority. Jaipur, who by his order dated March 21, 1972 upheld the decree and order for possession passed by the trial court in favour of Ali Molid. The petitioner Hari Singh filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which came up far hearing More the Board of Revenue on March 5, 1974. On that date, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant sought an adjournment on the ground of illness of the petitioner. The Board of Revenue granted an adjournment subject to payment of Rs. 30/- as costs and fixed the appeal for hearing on April 17, 1974. On the- adjourned date of hearing again learned counsel appearing for the appellant petitioner sought an adjournment, but costs awarded on the earlier date were not paid. This time the Board of Revenue refused the adjournment and dismissed the appeal. 2. An application for restoration of the appeal was filed on behalf of the petitioner on April 23, 1974 under Order 41 Rule 19 C P.C. The petitioner stated in the application that on account of the fact that his son was suffering from fever, he could not attend the court on April 17, 1974 and as the record was with him his counsel was unable to argue the appeal and the counsel was also unable to in like payment of the amount of costs to the respondent's counsel on account of the absence of the petitioner. The Board of Revenue by its order dated May 17, 1971 dismissed the application of the appellant for restoration on the ground that the application under Order 41 Rule 19 was not maintainable, as the appeal was not dismissed in default of appearance under Order 41 Rule 17 C.P.C , but was decided in default of proof The validity of the last mentioned order passed by the Board of Revenue has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Order 41 Rale 16 C.P.C , provides that on the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, the appellant shall be heard in support of the appeal. Rule 17 provides that if the appellant does not appear on the date fixed or on the adjourned date when the appeal is called on for hearing, the court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. If an appeal is dismissed under Rule 11(2) or Rule 17 or Rule 18 or Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant may apply for readmission of appeal to the appellant cost under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. and the appellate court can re-admit the appeal, on such terms as to costs or otherwise, if it is proved that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing. If the appellant is absent on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal on the adjourned date, the court has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for default of appearance. But where the appellant or his counsel is percent on the date lied for the hearing of the appeal but he does not address any arguments the appellate court may dismiss the appeal, but that court is not bound to go through the entire material and judgment of the trial court and decide the appeal on merits. 4. In Mt. Fakrumisa v. Izarus Sadik ( AIR 1921 P.C. 55 ) , their Lordships of the Privy Council held that in every appeal it is incubment upon the appellant to show some reason why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed. It is for the appellant to point out the circumstances which should be considered for justifying the alteration of the judgment. It is for the appellant to point out the circumstances which should be considered for justifying the alteration of the judgment. Thus, it is the duty of the appellant to show that the judgment under appeal is erroneous for certain reasons and only when any such error is pointed out in the judgment of the lower court, the appellate court would call upon the respondent to reply under Order 41 Rule 16 (2) C.P.C. If the appellant of has advanced no arguments, then it is not incumbent upon the appellate court to disturb the judgment of the lower court. 5. The judgment of the appellate court should contain the various matters mentioned in Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. If no points are raised for consideration. the appellate court cannot refer to the points for determination in its judgment and when no points are raised for determination, there cannot possibly be a decision thereon and therefore no reasons for -rich decision are required to be given. If the appellant or his counsel is present, but does not address the court and does not submit anything against the decision of the lower court, then the provisions of Order .11 Rule 31 C.P.C. need not be complied with. It is not the duty of the appellate court, in the absence of any argument being put forward before it on behalf of the appellant, to consider all the objections mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, because all such grounds which are taken in the memo of appeal cannot be considered as -'the points for determination", referred to in Order 41 Rule 31 C P.C. It is often seen that so many grounds raised in the memo of appeal are not argued or pressed at the time of hearing of the appeal and only a few of those grounds are actually advanced at the time of hearing of' the appeal. As such, all the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal cannot be taken to be "tire points for determination", for the purpose of discussion in the judgment of the appellate court, in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 C P.C. It is for the appellant to raise the points which he desires to urge against the judgment appealed from and to canvass the grounds against the correctness of the judgment of the lower court. The appellant cannot raise several objections in his memo of appeal and leave it to appellate court to give its decision on all those points, after going through the record and determine the correctness thereof without any arguments being advanced before it at the time of hearing of the appeal. 6. Under Order 41 Rule 16 C.P.C. no duty is cast on the appellate court to find out for itself possible points for determination in the appeal and then to proceed to give its decision on such points. This view is supported by the decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Thakur Sukh Lal Singh v. Thakur Kalyansingh and another (AIR 1963 SC 116) . wherein it was held that the provisions of Order 41 Rule- 31 C.P.C. should be reasonably construed and should be held to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised same points for determination before the appellate court and not when no such points have been raised. In the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, The appellant's first appeal came before the High Court of-Madhya Bharat on January 4, 1955. The counsel for the appellant stated that lie had no instructions to represent the appellant. The appellant, who was present, filed an application for adjournment which was rejected. The appellant was not prepared to address the court and the High Court dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the appellant submits nothing for its consideration, the appellate court can decide the appeal without reference to any proceedings of the court below and in doing so the appellate court can simply say that the appellant has not urged anything which would show that the judgment and decree under appeal were erroneous. 7. It may be pointed out that in case the appellant himself is absent and the appellant's counsel alone is present and on the rejection of his application for adjournment by the appellate court, he may plead no instructions, then the situation would be as if the appellant has not appeared at that stage. 7. It may be pointed out that in case the appellant himself is absent and the appellant's counsel alone is present and on the rejection of his application for adjournment by the appellate court, he may plead no instructions, then the situation would be as if the appellant has not appeared at that stage. If the appellate court proceeds to dismiss the appeal for default in the aforesaid circumstances, then the order would obviously fill under Order 41 Rule 17 C.P.C. and then an application for re admission of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 would be maintainable. But if inspite of the rejection of his request for adjournment. learned counsel for the appellant or the appellant himself remains present before the appellate court, but do not urge anything in support of the appeal and the appellate court proceeds to dismiss the appeal. then such dismissal would obviously fall under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. and not under Order 41 Rule 17 C.P.C. and in that event an application under order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. forre-admission of the appeal would not be maintainable. But as observed earlier, if the appellant as well as his pleader are absent at the time when the appeal is called on for hearing, then Order 41 Rule 17 G P.C. would be applicable. However, when the appellant's pleader is present in the court when the appeal is called on for hearing and he reports to the court that he has no instructions, then the situation would be like the one when he is not present in the court and in that event also the provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 would be applicable. If the appellant is absent, but counsel for the appellant is present, then the appeal cannot be dismissed in default of appearance. However, if the appellant's counsel applies for an adjournment and on the adjournment being refused, he informs the appellate court that he has no further instructions, he has undoubtedly put in appearance upto a particular stage; but then having reported no instructions his mere physical presence before the appellate court cannot make out a care of presence of the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. In the case of M/s Chandra Stores v. Cloth Marchants Association. Ajmer ( AIR 1964 Raj. 8. In the case of M/s Chandra Stores v. Cloth Marchants Association. Ajmer ( AIR 1964 Raj. 197 ) , the facts were that the senior counsel in-charge of the appeal was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing and the appellant was also not present, but only the second counsel-appointed merely to look after the routine work in connection with the appeal and who was not instructed to argue the appeal, appeared and applied for an adjournment which was refused Then, the counsel who was present stated that he had no instructions to argue the appeal and in such circumstances the appeal was dismissed. It was field by a Division Bench of this Court that the order of dismissal passed in such a case fell tinder Order 41 rule 17 C.P.C. as it was a case of default of appearance. Their Lordships observed that the mere physical presence of the second counsel did not amount to a legal appearance of the appellant within the meaning of Order 411 Rule 16 C.P C. It was held by this Court in the aforesaid case that the appearance of a pleader of a party is equivalent to the appearance of the party itself. But if the counsel appears for a limited purpose of seeking an adjournment, then his mere physical appearance at the hearing of the appeal cannot be considered sufficient to constitute appearance in the legal sense of the terma, unless he is duly instructed to argue the appeal. 9. In the present case, the appellant was present when the appeal was called on for hearing on April 17, 1974. He sought an adjournment which was refused but then the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the Board of Revenue did not urge any ground to show as to how the decree and order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority were erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant also did not plead no instructions, even after the rejection of his application for adjournment. Under such circumstances, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal. Such dismissal was obviously not in default of appearance of the appellant, as his counsel was present throughout at the time of hearing of the appeal, but such dismissal was for want of proof. Under such circumstances, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal. Such dismissal was obviously not in default of appearance of the appellant, as his counsel was present throughout at the time of hearing of the appeal, but such dismissal was for want of proof. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sukhpal Single's case (2) the appellate court has it light to dismiss the appeal for want of proof, In the circumstances, when the appellant or his counsel appears, but does not address the court. the appellate court is not bound to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of material on record. In this view of the matter, the Members of the Board of Revenue were justified in holding that the dismissal of the appeal in the instant case was not under Order 41 Rule 17 C.P.C. and as such an application for re-admission of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. was not maintainable. 10. The view taken by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue in their court dated May 17. 1914 is upheld. The writ petition has no met it and is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. *******