JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff landlord's revision under Section 115, CPC, which arises in unusual circumstances. 2. A suit for eviction was filed on February 1, 1968 on certain grounds permissible for eviction of the defendant-tenant. The defence of the tenant was struck out on March 9, 1973. The case was then fixed for evidence on November 8, 1973. On that day the plaintiff's evidence was recorded and closed. The defendant was absent on that day and, therefore, the plaintiff's witnesses were not cross-examined. The trial Court even then fixed the case for recording defendant's evidence on December 21, 1973. The defendant was absent even on that day and the case was then adjourned by the trial Court for recording the defendant's evidence on January 29, 1974. In the mean time the defendant preferred an appeal against the trial Court's order dated November 8, 1973 by which the plaintiff's evidence had been closed without cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses on account of the defendant's absence. That appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on August 1, 1975. The parties were directed to appear in the trial Court on August 6, 1975. The trial Court's order-sheet dated August 6, 1975 mentions that the case was fixed again for recording defendant's evidence on September 6, 1975 and the defendant was required to take steps within the time allowed for procuring the attendance of his witnesses. Admittedly no such steps were taken by the defendant to produce his evidence on Sept. 6, 1975 and no one even appeared on his behalf in the trial Court on that date. Accordingly that rial Court closed the evidence on September 6, 1975 and decreed the suit on merits in plaintiff's favour on September 10, 1975 on the basis of material present in the record. 3. The defendant filed an application on September 16, 1975 purporting to be under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated September 6, 1975. Thereafter on September 30, 1975 an application was filed by the defendant for setting aside the decree passed in plaintiff's favour on September 10, 1975. 4. 3. The defendant filed an application on September 16, 1975 purporting to be under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated September 6, 1975. Thereafter on September 30, 1975 an application was filed by the defendant for setting aside the decree passed in plaintiff's favour on September 10, 1975. 4. The trial Court dismissed the defendant's application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on September 30, 1975 taking the view that the ultimate decision of the trial Court was in these circumstances under Order 17, Rule 3 CPC and, therefore, no application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was maintainable. 5. The defendant preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was allowed by the impugned order dated August 23, 1977. The appeal Court has held that the case is governed by Rule 2 and not by Rule 3 of Order 17 CPC and, therefore the defendant's application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC is maintainable. Accordingly the trial Court has been directed to decide the application of the defendant filed on September 30, 1975 in accordance with Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has preferred this revision for restoring the trial Court's order dismissing the defendant's application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 7. In my opinion it is not necessary in the present case to go into the question whether it is Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order 17 CPC, which applies. Assuming that it is Rule 2 of Order 17 CPC which applies and, therefore, the application dated September 30, 1975 has to be treated as maintainable requiring it to be decided in accordance with Order 9, Rule 13 CPC the same has to be dismissed since it does not make out even a prima facie case for grant of the relief claimed therein. The only ground set out in the aforesaid application dated September 30, 1975 for setting aside the trial Court's decree passed on merits is that the trial Court had fixed September 6, 1975 merely for appearance of the parties without giving any direction to produce the defendant's evidence on that dale on account of which no evidence was required to be produced by the defendant on September 6, 1975. Rest of the contents of the application and the accompanying affidavit are not material for this purpose. Rest of the contents of the application and the accompanying affidavit are not material for this purpose. A bare perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court dated August 6, 1975 is sufficient to repel this contention. The order-sheet dated August 6, 1975 clearly mentions that the case was fixed for recording the defendant's evidence on September 6, 1975 and there was a further direction given therein requiring the defendant to take steps for procuring the attendance of his witnesses on September 6, 1975 in the manner stated and within the time specified. It is therefore, not possible to accept the defendant's contention to the contrary in the face of the specific contents of the trial Court's order-sheet dated August 6,1975. It is therefore, clear from the record itself that the only ground set out in the application made by the defendant on September 30, 1975 under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC does not merit any further enquiry and the same does not, therefore, make out even a prima facie case in the defendant's favour. It is, therefore, obvious that the defendant cannot be given the relief which is claimed by him in the application made on September 30, 1975 under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. In such a situation a direction to the trial Court to hold any further enquiry would be an exercise in futility and would undoubtedly be very unjust to the plaintiff, who has been deprived of the fruits of the decree in his favour for the last 11 years. This alone is sufficient to allow this revision. 8. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated August 23, 1977 is set aside and that of the trial Court dismissing the defendant's application made under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC is restored, though for a different reason. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.Revision Allowed. *******