( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants. ( 2 ) IN this F. A. F. O. , order dated October 7, 1996, rejecting the application made by the appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, has been impugned. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the court below wrongly exercised the discretion vested in it under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The suit was filed by the Central Bank against the appellants for recovery of the amount of loan. It is stated by counsel for the appellants that the evidence between the parties was over and then May 29, 1995, was fixed for arguments. On that date neither the appellants nor their counsel put in appearance and then the court below decided the suit on merits. Order 17, Rule 2 and the Explanation thereto runs as follows : "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. " The Allahabad High Court by virtue of amendment added the following to Rule 2 :"where the evidence, or a substantial portion of the evidence, of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on such day, the court may in its discretion proceed with the case as if such party were present, and may dispose of it on the merits. " ( 4 ) IN view of the fact that the evidence between the parties was closed and the case was listed only for hearing of arguments on May 29, 1995, we are of the considered view that the court below was right in exercising its discretion to dispose of the suit on the merits on May 29, 1995, which was the adjourned date. The evidence having been concluded and the date for arguments having been fixed by the court below when the appellants and their counsel failed to appear, we see no good reason to agree with the contention of the appellants that the court below erroneously exercised discretion vested in it under Order 17, Rule 2, read with the Allahabad high Court amendment. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had to go out of station in connection with some urgent piece of work on May 29, 1995, when the suit was listed for arguments and, therefore, they instructed their counsel to move an adjournment application which he failed to move and that on these facts the trial court should have resorted to Order 9 instead of deciding the suit on merits. We see no force in the submission of counsel for the appellants. When May 29, 1995, was fixed only for arguments, the presence of the appellants was wholly immaterial and counsel should have been instructed by them to conclude the arguments instead of making an application for adjournment. The F. A. F. O. , therefore, fails and is dismissed. .