( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the plaintiff/petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 21 October 1986 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 18,500. 00 was dismissed under order 17 Rules 2 and 3 Civil Procedure Code or failure on its part to produce any evidence on the date fixed for the purpose While observing that even the plaintiff himself did not appear in the witness box and hence there was no need to give issue wise finding, the court has concluded that evidence has not been adduced by the plaintiff despite sufficient opportunity. ( 2 ) IN this petition the defendants/respondents were served by publication. At the time of admission of the petition it was directed that actual date notice shall issue to the respondents as also to Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocate who was representing the respondents on the Trial Court. The service report on the actual date notice issued to the respondents is that they have avoided service. Mr. Umesh Mishra has been served. I am satisfied that the respondents have been duly served in the petition. No one is present on their behalf. I proceed to dispose of the matter, which is pending for almost a decade. ( 3 ) MR. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the defendants were absent on the date of hearing, the Trial Court instead of summarily dismissing the suit under Order 17 Rules 2 and 3, C. P. C, should have proceded under Order 9 C. P. C. His submission is that the Trial Court having wrongly applied provisions of Order 17 Rule 3, C. P. C, it has acted with material irregularity and, therefore, the revision petition deserves to be accepted. ( 4 ) I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel. From the record it is evident that on 21 October 1986, counsel for the plaintiff was present but no body had appeared on behalf of the defendants. ( 4 ) I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel. From the record it is evident that on 21 October 1986, counsel for the plaintiff was present but no body had appeared on behalf of the defendants. Though there was a lapse on the part of the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of one of the issues, for which onus was cast on it, but having regard to the clear language of Order 17 Rule 3, the defendants having absented themselves on 21 October 1986 and no evidence having been led on their behalf by the time, the explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 was not applicable and, therefore, the Court had no option but to proceed to dispose ofthe suit in any one of the modes prescribed under Order 9, C. P. C. ( 5 ) IN Prakash Chander v. Janki Manchanda, AIR 1987 SC 42 , while dealing with the scope of Order 17 Rules 2 and 3, C. P. C, the Supreme Court has held that where a party is absent, the only course as mentioned in Order 17 Rule 3 (b) is to proceed under Rule 2 of Order 17, C. P. C. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforenoted settled legal position, it has to be held that Order 17 Rule 3, C. P. C, as it stands, was not applicable to the facts in hand as admittedly on the date when the impugned order dismissing the suit on merits, was passed, nobody appeared for the defendants, the Trial Court committed a material irregularity. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 21 October 1986 is set aside. The suit is restored for trial and disposal in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.