JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This appeal has arisen from an order dismissing an application under Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C., for re-admitting appeal for hearing. The appeal has been finally heard at admission stage with the agreement of the parties under High Court Rules. Lower Court tire ford has been summoned and perused. Hence, appeal is being disposed of at this stage on merits. 2. As is evident from lower court record appellants filed civil Appeal No. 179 of 1984 against the respondents against judgment and decree dated 1st May, 1984 passed by Munsif City, Jaunpur, decreeing the suit for cancellation of will dated 22 January, 1971 executed by Mangroo in favour of Bhagwati Prasad, Shital Prasad and Meetal Prasad. There were number of adjournments at the instance of the appellant. On 9th September, 1987 the appeal was called out The note recorded by the lower appellate Court is "parties want to call their counsels". It then appears that the appeal was called out again. Respondent was present with his counsel. Appellant did not turn up despite repeated calls. Counsel for appellants appeared before the lower appellate Court and stated that his client did not contact him, hence he was unable to argue the appeal. Respondents moved application accompanied by an affidavit that the appellant had been present all along but was not appearing in the Court. In these circumstances the lower Court treated the appellant to be present in the Court and heard the appeal on merits. The lower appellate Court fixed 17 the September, 1987 for judgment. It is admitted between parties that on 17th September, 1987 staff of the Court proceeded on strike and Courts could re-open only on 9th October, 1987. Then the appeal was fixed for judgment on 13th October, 1987. On that date the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal on merits by a discussed judgment. 3. On 21st October, 1987 appellants moved application under Order 41, Rule 19 C.P.C., for re-admitting the appeal for hearing. Ground urged in the application was that appellant No. 1, i.e., Bhagwati Prasad who used to conduct pairvi of the appeal fell ill and so could not attend the court on 9th September, 1987. Affidavit was filed in support of this application. Ground urged in the application was that appellant No. 1, i.e., Bhagwati Prasad who used to conduct pairvi of the appeal fell ill and so could not attend the court on 9th September, 1987. Affidavit was filed in support of this application. In this affidavit only this much was said that appellant No. 1 could not attend the court on 9th September, 1987 on account of his illness. Nature of illness was not disclosed. 4. This application was opposed by written objections. It was asserted that on 9th September, 1987 appellant Bhagwati Prasad was present in the Court and for protracting the litigation he intentionally did not present himself before the court. It was further contended that the appeal was heard on merits and was decided on merits and so application for re-admitting the appeal for hearing was not maintainable. A counter affidavit in support of the objections was filled. 5. Learned lower Appellate Court noted the conduct of the appellants that they took number of adjournments. Learned lower Court came to the conclusion that it was clear that appellants wanted to prolong and delay the proceedings vexatiously. They had taken 7 adjournments on the sole ground that their counsel was not prepared. Learned lower Court found that the appellant appeared and the appeal was heard on merits. The learned lower Court relied upon the case of Balram v. Ram Nihore, 1963 ALJ 103 and dismissed the application for re-admitting the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, appellants have come to this Court. 7. Two points arise for determination in this appeal: - (1) Whether the appeal could be legally deemed to have been decided on merits or could it have been only dismissed in default on 9th September 1987? (2) Whether the appellants had sufficient cause for absence on the date of hearing or in other words whether they were precluded from attending the Court by sufficient cause ? 8. In the circumstances of the case the first question is only of academic interest for this appeal. At any rate a finding may be recorded on this question. It is evident that when the appeal was called for hearing for the second time appellants were not present and their counsel stated that his client did not contact him. 8. In the circumstances of the case the first question is only of academic interest for this appeal. At any rate a finding may be recorded on this question. It is evident that when the appeal was called for hearing for the second time appellants were not present and their counsel stated that his client did not contact him. It should not be forgotten that procedure prescribed in Order 41, C.P.C., is independent of procedure prescribed in Order 17, C.P.C., with respect to suits. According to Allahabad Amendment in Order 17, Rule 2, C.P.C., even if a counsel appears and moves application for adjournment which is refused, a party should not be deemed to have failed to appear. In the instant case the counsel for the appellant was present before the Court but said that be was not contacted by his client. This only implied that there was prayer for adjournment which the court refused. But provisions of Order 17, Rule 2. C.P.C., cannot be made applicable to hearing of appeals. All the controversy was set at rest by addition of explanation to sub-rule (1) of Order 41, Rule 17 (1) lays down that where on the date fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed, the explanation added to this sub-rule is "nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the court to dismiss the appeal on the merits ' ' This explanation very clearly excludes deemed appearance of appellant. In the instant case when the appeal was called for hearing for the second time appellant was absent and his counsel could not be deemed to have appeared. Then the appeal could not have been dismissed on merits. In view of the amendment made in sub-rule (1) of Order 41, Rule 17, the case of Balram & anr. v. Nihore & ors.has lost significance. In the case of Badri Pandey v. Ram Chandra, 1975 A.LJ. 659 respondents' counsel sought adjournment, took no part in appeal, application was rejected and appeal was allowed. Decision of appeal was held to be ex parte. Application for re-hearing was found maintainable. In the case of Vikram Singh & anr. v. Nihore & ors.has lost significance. In the case of Badri Pandey v. Ram Chandra, 1975 A.LJ. 659 respondents' counsel sought adjournment, took no part in appeal, application was rejected and appeal was allowed. Decision of appeal was held to be ex parte. Application for re-hearing was found maintainable. In the case of Vikram Singh & anr. v. State of U.P. ors, 1983 A.W.C. 432 appeal was called on the date fixed, a person responded and went to call the counsel. After some time appeal was again taken up and at that time none responded. By a cryptic and nonspeaking order appeal was dismissed on merits. It was held that the order passed was illegal and appeal should have been dismissed in default. This ruling has no application in the present case. In the case of Mahesh Chandra Vyas & ors. v. Yogendra Varshney & ors., 1985 A.W.C. 1046 the facts altogether different and so this case also has no application to the present case. But reverting back to the facts of the instant case it is evident that when the appeal was called for hearing the second time appellant was not in attendance and his counsel could not be deemed to be appearing for hearing. Hence judgment though recorded as judgment on merits will have to be treated as ex parte dismissal of appeal. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the learned lower Court proceeded in a confused manner and did not specifically decide the question whether on 9th September, 1987 appellant was precluded from appearing in the Court by sufficient cause and so as ordered in the case of Badri Pandey v. Ram Chandra (supra), in view of the finding that application for readmission of the appeal under order 41, Rule 19 is maintainable, the lower Court order should be set aside and case should be remanded to the lower appellant Court for fresh decision. I am unable to agree with this contention. Now there is well settled law that the Appellate Court has ample power to do all that lower Court could do. There is also well settled law that as far as possible remand should be avoided and if there is sufficient material on the record on which a question of fact can be decided the appellate Court should itself decide the question of fact. There is also well settled law that as far as possible remand should be avoided and if there is sufficient material on the record on which a question of fact can be decided the appellate Court should itself decide the question of fact. Sufficient cause is a question of fact which an appellants Court, seized of law and facts, can decide. In the instant case the record has all the necessary material for deciding the question of fact whether the appellant was precluded by sufficient cause from attending the Court on 9th September, 1987. Hence, I would proceed to decide the question. 10. I am unable to agree with observation of the learned lower appellate Court that Shital or Meetal in absence of Bhagwati Prasad could have attended the Court and got the appeal argued. There was affidavit that Bhagwati Prasad was ill. If that was correct there was also averment in the affidavit that Bhagwati Prasad used to conduct pairvi on behalf of the appellants. If Bhagwati Prasad was really ill Meetal Prasad or Shital Prasad could not have come for pairvi. The real question that arises is whether on 9th September, 1987 appellant Bhagwati Prasad was really ill or was offering a lame excuse. It is evident that the background was against the appellant. As many as 7 adjournments had been taken. Then it is evident from the record that according to note of the lower Court Judge when the appeal was called for the first time both the parties were present. Then it is evident that on 9th September, 1987 itself respondents put in application accompanied by affidavit that Bhagwati Prasad was present but did not deliberately attend the Court. Lastly it has to be pointed out that in the affidavit of Bhagwati Prasad nature of illness was not disclosed. There was no medical certificate in support of the case of illness of Bhagwati Prasad. There was a counter affidavit. In the circumstances of the case counter affidavit has to be preferred. I hold that on the day of hearing appellant Bhagwati Prasad was present in the Court, he was not ill, for the reasons best known to him he did not attend the Court at the time of hearing. It is thus obvious that he offered a lame excuse. In the circumstances of the case counter affidavit has to be preferred. I hold that on the day of hearing appellant Bhagwati Prasad was present in the Court, he was not ill, for the reasons best known to him he did not attend the Court at the time of hearing. It is thus obvious that he offered a lame excuse. There was no sufficient cause which could preclude the appellants from appearing at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11. In view of this finding of fact application under Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C., cannot be allowed. Appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs.