JUDGMENT K.M. Pande, J. 1. This revision has been preferred againts the order dated 28.4.89 passed by X Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore. 2. Brife facts of the case are that a petition Under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act was pending in the Court and on the date of hearing the Court below passed an order of dismissal of the suit treating the plaintiff absent because on that date the plaintiff/applicant was not present when the case was taken up for hearing. The plaintiff/applicant was present and she moved an applicant on for restoration of the dismissal order on the next date alongwith an affidavit that she was present alongwith her Counsel and five witnesses. The fact is that there was strike on that date and she was present all along. She requested the Court for time to call her Counsel. The Court waited for the plaintiff's lawyer till 2.60 P.M. The Court, therefore, directed that the case will be taken up at 2.45 P.M. and oral instructions were given that the parties should be present alongwith their Counsel at 2.45. Her Counsel was not present at that time. Case was taken after 3.45 again but she walked out of the Court room. Court waited till 4.15 and when she did not turn up nor her Counsel arrived, the Court passed an order for dismissal of the suit for non appearance. 3. The Court's order dated 28.4.89 shows that the Court waited for the lawyers till 3.45 P.M. and the petitioner also went out of the Court. Again the Court waited till 4.15 P.M. The party and her Counsel both were absent and consequently, the Court passed an order that case is dismissed for non prosecution. An application for setting aside the dismissal order was moved next day and after hearing the parties the learned Judge passed an order for restoration. The defendant has preferred the present revision against the said order of restoration of dismissal order passed by the Court below. 4. Defendant's contention is that the Court should not have treated the plaintiff/applicant absent because she was very much present in the Court and it was an adjourned date of hearing at her instance. Consequently, the Court should have proceeded u/O. XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. and given the decision on merits. 4. Defendant's contention is that the Court should not have treated the plaintiff/applicant absent because she was very much present in the Court and it was an adjourned date of hearing at her instance. Consequently, the Court should have proceeded u/O. XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. and given the decision on merits. The default in absence was not u/O XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. but it was u/O XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. for adjourned date of hearing and the plaintiff also absented herself. Consequently, the order should be terated an order u/O XVII Rule 3 and as such the provisions of order 9 will not be attracted. Appeal should have been preferred. 5. The short point for determination is -- Whether in the present set of facts the order of dismissal passed by the Court below was u/O XVII Rule 2 C.P.C. or u/O XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. 6. There are certain facts in this case which are not disputed, namely, that It was an adjourned date at plaintiff's instance and that the plaintiff had put in appearance on that date, Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. reads as follows: "Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted falls 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 them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2". In the present case the Court preferred to proceed under Rule 2 and did not decide the suit forthwith Order XVII Rule 2 C.P.C. reads as below : "Where on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appeal, 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." The very fact that the Court did not proceed to decide the suit forthwith but passed an order u/O IX shows that resort was taken u/O XVII Rule 2 C.P.C. and the provisions of Order IX were attracted. 7. I have perused the order. 7. I have perused the order. The learned Judge has said that the Court staff was on strike and in the absence of the applicant Mayabai, the case was ordered to be dismissed for non prosecution. It has further been said in the order sheet and the order itself that neither the applicant nor her Counsel was present at 4.15 P.M. when the case was taken for hearing and for non prosecution, due to the absence of the applicant, the case has been ordered to be dismissed. There is no iota of doubt that the Court preferred to proceed u/O XVII Rule 2 C.P.C. and the dismissal order as passed accordingly. If the order was passed u/O XVII R C.P.C. then the provisions of Order IX Rule 4 were attracted because both the parties were not present at that time and in this background the Court treated taht a case u/O IX R C P.C. was made out and the said dismissal order has been set aside on payment of cost of Rs. 30/-. 8. In this view of the matter the order for setting aside the dismissal order passed by the Court below does not call for any interference. The present revision fails and rejected.