Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. This appeal was filed originally by the plaintiff against an order dismissing his application under Order-IX Rule-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed for restoration of his suit bearing Title Suit No.534 of 1974. The plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and his heirs were substituted. 2. Tbe relevant facts are short and simple. Hearing of the Miscellaneous case (Order-IX-Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure application) commenced on 25th of May, 1979. The plaintiff-applicant examined one Purushottam prasad as A. W.1. The opposite parties-Respondents herein-put in an application to defer the cross-examination of the aforementioned Purushottam Prasad for the next date on the ground that his lawyer was is busy in some other court. The plaintiff-applicant also put in an application for grant of time to bring further witnesses. It appears from the order dated 25-5-1979 that the prayer was allowed and the case was adjourned to 9th June, 1979 for further evidence. On 9th June, 1979, on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant time was prayed for, on the ground that due to illness he has not come, after passing an order that at 10.45 A. M the applicant must appear, which was allowed subject to payment of cost fixing 16th June, 1979. The court below also directed the parties to come ready on that day. On 16th June, 1979, yet another application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant on the ground that he is an extremely old man and that his condition is serious and thus he could not come to court ncr could bring any witness and thus the case be adjourned. No rejoinder was filed by the respondents herein disputing the correctness of the facts though a hazri was filed on their behalf. The court below rejected the prayer for adjournment on the ground that the same is based on frivulous ground and directed the parties to come ready for hearing at once later by 9 30 A. M. No one appeared on behalf of the applicant despite repeated calls the Miscellaneous case was dismissed for default by the impugned order. 3. Mr. The court below rejected the prayer for adjournment on the ground that the same is based on frivulous ground and directed the parties to come ready for hearing at once later by 9 30 A. M. No one appeared on behalf of the applicant despite repeated calls the Miscellaneous case was dismissed for default by the impugned order. 3. Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants, appearing in support of the appeal submits as follows : (i) The finding that the grounds given in the adjournment petition are flimsy is based on mere speculations surmises and conjectures and the prayer for adjournment ought to have been accepted when the correctness of the grounds mentioned were not disputed. The fact of the illness of the original appellant and his ol age causing serious concern stands proved by the fact that he also died during the pendency of this appeal. (ii) The court below had also not applied its mind that on 25th of may, 1979, the Respondents had also prayed for granting time. (iii) The court below has not correctly understood the scope of Order-XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Mr Mathura Nath Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the original appellant was given opportunity to produce his witnesses on 9-6-1979 and also on 16-6-1979 and thus the court below was correct in passing the impugned order dismissing the Miscellaneous case. 5. In my view the submissions of Mr. Prasad have got substance. The hearing of the Miscellaneous case had commenced on 25th of May, 1979 and on that day the respondents themselves had come up for deferring the hearing of the Miscellaneous case. On the next day i. e, on 9th June, 1979, a request for adjournment was made on the ground of non-corning of the plaintiff-applicant on account of his illness, which was non-disputed. On that day no request was made by the respondents surprisingly for production A. W.1 for his cross-examination. On 16th June, 1979, i e. the last day, an application was filed for an adjournment on the ground that due to his old age and detonated condition the applicant could not come to court, which fact was not disputed as incorrect by the respondents by filing any re-joinder. 6. Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows :- "1. 6. Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows :- "1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing : (1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. (2) Cost of adjournment:in every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment : (Provided that, (a) when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day if necessary, (b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party, (c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment, (d) where the illness of a pleader or his liability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time, (e) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader, though present in court is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be, by the party or his pleader not present or not ready as aforesaid)2. Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixedwhere, 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.3. Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixedwhere, 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.3. Court may proceed not witht sandtng either party to fail to produce evidence, etc,where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, (the Court may, notwithstanding such default, (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith ; or (b) if the parties are, or any of thoen is, absent, proceed under rule 2.)" Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been recently subject matter of interpretation in Suryabali and others V/s. The VI Additional District Judge, deorta and others, 1989 Allahabad Law Journal 248 wherein it was held as follows : "5. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate that the time must be granted on a particular date and at subsequent date, may be a short date, according to the requirement of the case, or in other cases it may be a long date If a particular party has failed to produce his evidence or to perform any other act, the Court may pass an order appropriate to the requirement in the case.6. It is the elementary rule of interpretation that the procedural law has to be interpreted with a view to advance substantial justice. Order xvii of the Code commences with the hearing adjournment. Rules 1, 2 and 3 have to be interpreted keeping in view that the parliament has confined Order XVII particulary to granting adjournments, refusing the same and the consequences emanating therefrom. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XVII is to the effect that if sufficient case is shown at any stage of the suit, the Court shall have the power to grant time to the parties, and from time to time the Court may adjourn the hearing of the suit. This sub-rule gives unfetteied discretion to the Court to grant appropriate adjournments at any stage. This sub-rule gives unfetteied discretion to the Court to grant appropriate adjournments at any stage. Sub-role (2) is about the cost of adjournment. Rule 2 applies to the cases of default in appearance of the parties on the date to which hearing of the suit is adjourned. In case the party failed to appeal the Court may dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed under Order IX. The only distinction is that Order IX deals with the appearance of parties at the first hearing of the suit, whereas Rule 2 deals with the failure of a party to appear on the adjournment hearing. There is an explanation added to Rule 2 that in case a substantial portion of evidence of any party has already been recorded but the party failed to appear on any day to which the hearing was adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if the said party was present. Rule 2 is about failure of the party to whom time has been granted to produce evidence or to cause attendance of his witnesses, in that event the Court may, in spite of such default, if parties are present, decide the suit forthwith. In case the parties are absent the Court may proceed under Rule 2, meaning thereby that the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit under Order IX, or in case substantial evidence has been led, in spite of absence, the Court may proceed with the case. " "7 The procedural fairness of the principles of natural justice has been embodied in the provisions of Rules 1,2 and 3 of Order XVII with a view that justice is done, as may order passed by the Court would affect rights of the parties. These rules have not to be interpreted so that they may exclude principles of natural justice which are so eommon. The board principles of natural justice are contained in the latin maxim AUS I ALTER AM PARTEM, i. e. , the right of a party must not be affected without affording him opportunity of hearing. The other inescapable conclusion is that he must be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The board principles of natural justice are contained in the latin maxim AUS I ALTER AM PARTEM, i. e. , the right of a party must not be affected without affording him opportunity of hearing. The other inescapable conclusion is that he must be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The next maxim correlated with the first one is OUT ALIQUID statuerit PARTE INAUDITA ALTERA ACQUOM LICET dixerit BAUD ACQUOM FACERIT, which means that he, who shall decide anything without the ether side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have done what is right, or in other words, as it is now expressed these days justice should not only be done but must manifestly appear to have been done. See John V/s. Rees, 1970 Ch D 345, Union of India V/s. Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 . " I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid view of the learned judge of the allahabad High Court. 7 The fact that the applicant was of old age, bis illness and his condition causing concern were not in dispute and thus the court below was not justified in surity the prayer for adjournment over locutory Order XVII of the code, Thus, the consequential dismissal of the case for default was also not proper and legal. 8. In the result the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. 9. Before I part, I direct the parties to appear on 2nd January, 1990 in the court below on which date, the court below shall fix another date of hearing intimating other parties as well and shall proceed to dispose of the case at the earliest. Appeal allowed.