B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff/appellant whose suit has been dismissed in terms of Order 10, Rule 4 of the Code of civil Procedure. ( 2 ) AS the cause-title shows, the plaintilf is a Co-operative Society. The society has sued through one Shailcndra Verma who has alleged to have due authority to file a suit representing the Society. The defendants were respondents 1 to 6. They were served. They caused their appearance in the court but have not still filed any written statement. One N. K. Vishwakarraa, who has not been made a party and is represented through Shri K. Pathak and has filed application to be joined as party, filed an application under order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure to be joined as a party to the suit. In that application, the averment is that Shailendra Kumar Verma is not a person duly authorised to file suit representing the Society. Instead, it is the case of Shri N. K. Vishwakarma that the suit filed through Shri Shailendra verma is vitiated being without any authority. That application was naturally opposed by the appellant. It appears that Shri Vishwakarma raised doubts as to the existence of any person by name Shailendra Verma. Impressed by such application and allegation made therein, the trial Court directed shailendra Verma to appear in person in Court. This was vide order dated 28-10-1989. The order reads : * * * * * * the case was then adjourned to 12-9-1989. It appears that the plaintiff/ appellant was aggrieved by this order and wanted to question it in revision before the High Court. Time was prayed for the purpose. It was prayed that further proceedings in the suit be remain stayed so as to enable the appellant to file intended revision. The matter came up before lower Court on 12-9-1989. On that date, Shailendra Verma was not present and the explanation is that he was suffering from tuberculosis. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 12-9-1989, dismissed the appellant's application for adjournment and then proceeded to dismiss the suit holding the appellant guilty of not producing Shri Shailendra Verma in Court as directed for examination. In this Court, Shri K. K. Vishwakarma was not made a party. Shri Patliak has made an application for joining N. K. Vishwakarma as a party. In this Court, Shri K. K. Vishwakarma was not made a party. Shri Patliak has made an application for joining N. K. Vishwakarma as a party. Shri Pathak has also been heard. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties, did not contest that the impugned order is a decree and, therefore, appealable as such under Section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure. On the perusal of that order, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand and the dismissal of the suit on that count has to be set aside. Clearly the terms of Order 10, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted in the present suit. The lower court was required to adjudicate upon the application filed by Shri N. K. Vishwakarma for being joined him as a party. The case was fixed for 12-9-1989 on which date the plaintiii'-appellaut was required to produce shailendra Verma for recording his statements. Clearly, therefore, the examination of Shailendra Verma was not required with a view to adjudicating matters in controversy in the suit. Rule 2 of Order 10 only permits oral examination of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit. It also permits oral examination of any person able to answer any material question relating to the suit by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied. Needless to say that no matter in suit was required to be elucidated at that stage for it appears from order-sheet dated 29-8-1989 that the case was adjourned and fixed for 12-9-1989 for adjudication of the applicaiton presented by Shri N. K. Vishwakarma for being joined him as a party. Even otherwise we find that under the circumstances, the plaintiff could not be visited with penalty provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of order 10, Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court has not recorded any finding nor has applied its mind to the fact whether Shailendra Verma had or had not any sufficient cause for not appearing in Court. The order appears to be entirely misconceived, IT Shailendra Verma did not appear as directed by the lower Court, it could have allowed the application under Order 1 rule 10. The order appears to be entirely misconceived, IT Shailendra Verma did not appear as directed by the lower Court, it could have allowed the application under Order 1 rule 10. If the application was allowed, Shri N. K. Vishwakarma could file his written statement challenging the authority of Shailendra Verma to file the suit representing the Society. It is in that event that the lower Court could have jurisdiction to exercise power under Order 10, Rule 4, Code of civil Procedure. ( 4 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The trial Court shall now proceed to adjudicate upon the application filed by Shri N. K. Vishwakarma. We may mention that Shri b. D. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has undertaken that he shall produce Shailendra Verma for trial Court's satisfaction on a date fixed by the trial Court. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. The record be transmitted to the trial Court immediately. Appeal allowed. .