JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision filed by Wadil under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the order dated 13.8.1986 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the revision filed against the order of the A.S.D.O. Saharanpur dated 14.11.1985 rejecting the application of the revisionist moved for setting aside the order dated 14.11.1985. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the opposite party no. 1 Barkat filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in which after the plaintiff's evidence four witnesses of defence had already been examined. Thereafter 28.10.1985 was fixed for remaining defence evidence. On that date the defendant namely the revisionist did not turn up, hence the trial court closed his evidence and fixed 30.10.1985 for arguments. On that date too the defendant was absent therefore the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff were heard and the case was fixed for 14.11.1985 for judgment. In the meanwhile the defendant turred up on 6.11.1985 with an application that he had met with an accident on 28.10.1985 and, therefore, he could not turn up on that date on 30.10.1985 and that he should be permitted to produce his remaining evidence. He filed a medical certificate also in support of this application. The trial court did not accept the medical certificate to be genuine and found the same for non-appearance to be fake, hence it rejected the application by its order dated 14.11.1985. 3. A revision preferred against that order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the order passed by the trial court is not in the nature of an order under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C., hence no appeal or revision could be filed against it. It was also contended that the finding of both the courts below on the ground about the absence of the defendant on the date fixed before the trial court is concurrent and since this is a question of fact it cannot be challenged in this Court. 6. It was also contended that the finding of both the courts below on the ground about the absence of the defendant on the date fixed before the trial court is concurrent and since this is a question of fact it cannot be challenged in this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the court had wide powers to allow any party to produce any evidence at any stage, hence the application of the revisionist should have been allowed and the trial court did not exercise its jurisdiction properly by rejecting the same. An affidavit by the doctor who had issued the medical certificate filed before the trial court was also produced before this court to assert that the ground taken by the defendant about the accident was genuine. 7. So far as the ground of the sufficiency of the reason for non-appearance on the relevant dates before the trial court is concerned, I think that the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party is not without force. The finding of both the courts below on that point being concurrent cannot be questioned in this revision. Hence the finding recorded by both of them cannot be disturbed at this stage by this court. Now so far as the discretion of the court is concerned about permitting any party to produce evidence at any stage 1 agree with the learned counsel for the revisionist but I am afraid to accept this contention at this stage because no revision would lie against a discretionary order. The impugned order of the trial court did not fall within any of the provisions of Order IX and it could fall only under Order XVII Rule 2 C. P. C. which reads as follows : - O. XVII R. 2 "Procedure if parties, fail to appear on day fixed. Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. Explanation . Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. Explanation . - Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present". 8. The wordings of the above rule indicate that in circumstances similarly those present in this case a court could pass an order either in accordance with the provisions of Order IX or make such order as it think fit. On the perusal of the impugned order it would appear that the trial court did not pass any order according to the provisions of Order IX C.P.C. Instead of its order fell within the concluding clause that is or "make such other order as it thinks fit" which cannot be revised by this court. The explanation appended to the above rule 2 also indicates that in such circumstances the court had no option but to proceed with the case and to fix the same for argument taking the defendant to be present. There was, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court and the same does not deserve to be altered or reversed in this revision. The revision filed against the order of the trial court was, therefore, rightly dismissed. 9. In view of the above discussion, this revision has no force and is dismissed. Let the record be sent back to the trial court for pronouncing judgement after hearing the arguments of both the parties.