The plaintiff has brought this revision under section 115 CPC from the order dated 7.4.86 passed by AH Laskar, Assistant District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 1985 confirming the order dated 30.5.85 passed by Shri TC Jain, Munsiff No. 2, Tezpur in Misc. Case No. 96 of 1984, refusing to restore Title Suit No. 9 of 1978 to a pending file. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right and title and for ejectment of the defendant from a plot of land measuring 8'11" x 2'9" The defendant was contesting the suit, The plaintiff had examined one witness after which the suit was adjourned to 12.1.84 for examination of plaintiff's other witnesses. On that day the plaintiff and his witnesses were absent but the plaintiff's counsel was present before the Court. As the plaintiff himself and his witnesse were not present the trial Court passed the following order:- "12.1.84: L.A. for both sides are present. Plaintiffs side has not brought any witness nor has he taken any step. Now it 11.50 AM. The suit is dismissed for not taking the steps". Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit. The grounds stated in the application was that he could not be present on 12.1.84 as he was ill and bed ridden. A medical certificate was attached to the application. The trial Court held that the dismissal order which it had passed on 12.1.84 would fall under Order 17 Rule 3 (a) CPC and that, as such it was an appealable order. Being of this view he held that the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit was not maintainable. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the appli­cation for restoring the suit. The order was confirmed by the appellate Court as stated above. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question for determination is whether the trial Court's order dated 12.1.84 will fall under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC which provides as follows; "3. The Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence etc. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question for determination is whether the trial Court's order dated 12.1.84 will fall under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC which provides as follows; "3. The Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence etc. - Where any party to the 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, or any of them is absent, proceed under Rule 2.” 4. The word `decide' occurring in Order 17 Rule 3(a) means adjudicate. Therefore, Order 17 Rule 3(a) requires the trial Court to adjudicate or determine a suit on merit conclusively by passing an order of the nature of a judgment. It does not contemplate disposal of a suit merely on the ground of plaintiff's failure to produce the witness. In the instant case the plaintiff had earlier examined one witness, so if the defendant did not want to examine his witness the trial Court could have closed the plaintiff's evidence and decide the suit forthwith on merit on the basis of the evidence available on record. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the Order 17 Rule 2 CPC which is as follows. "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 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." 5. In the instant case the trial Court's order dated 12.1.84 is a dismissal for plaintiff's failure or default to produce his witnesses. In the instant case the trial Court's order dated 12.1.84 is a dismissal for plaintiff's failure or default to produce his witnesses. It is not a conclusive determination of the suit on merit. Thus it appear that by this order the trial Court had disposed of the suit only in one of the modes directed by Order 9 CPC. Therefore, the impugned orders clearly fall under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC and not under Order 17 Rule 3(a) CPC. Thus an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit was clearly maintainable. 6. The next question for determination is whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not being able to be present before the trial Court on 12.1.84. In the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC the petitioner stated that he was ill and bed ridden on 12.1.84 and that was how he could not be present before the Court. That application was accompanied by a medical certificate from the attending doctor. The petitioner, therefore, had shown sufficient cause for his absence on that date. By refusing to entertain the application the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is restored to a pending suit. The trial Court shall now proceed with the suit by allowing the plaintiff to examine his witnesses. I make no order as to costs.