ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking relief for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-4-1989 Annexure-A to the petition passed in C.R. No. 16/87 by the Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh whereby he set aside the order dated 23rd February, 1987 on the application under Order 9, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the defendant/petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that in Civil Suit No. 27/86 (Smt. Rasidanbi vs. Ganpat Mistri) the plaintiff completed his evidence, the defendant was allowed time for producing his evidence and the case was adjourned for 15-11-1984, 3-12-1984, 8-1-1985, 25-1-1985, 3-5-1985, 9-7-1985, 24-10-1985, 13-12-1985, 29-1-1986, 5-3-1986 and 7-4-1986 but in spite of repeated adjournment having been granted the defendant did not produce his evidence and, accordingly, the defendant's evidence was closed under Order 16, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Case was posted for final arguments on 18-7-1986 afternoon. Arguments were heard and for judgment the case was posted for 21-7-1986 and on 21-7-1986 the decision was pronounced. The decision was given on merits. On 29-10-1986 an application under Order 9, Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure was moved before the trial Court. The trial Court allowed the application and set aside the judgment and decree and restored the suit by its original number vide judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1987. Against this order a revision was preferred. Before the revision Court the argument was that the order of the trial Court is bad as the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure was not competent. The Court in revision set aside the order of the trial Court finding that the order in the suit was passed under Order 17, Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure and the decision was given on merits deciding the suit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order was passed under clause (b) of Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was competent. This submission has no substance. Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted below: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order was passed under clause (b) of Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was competent. This submission has no substance. Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted below: 3. Where any party to a 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 are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2. It is not a case where it can be said that the parties or any of them was absent. In the prevent case, the parties were duly represented through counsel and the counsel appeared on the each date so fixed and not only this the counsel also advanced arguments on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable and his submission was that it could be a case of failure of the defendant to appear before the Court as representing through lawyer would not be regarded as an effective appearance of the defendant. The Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not speak effective or ineffective representation. When a person appears through lawyer it is his appearance. Learned counsel placed reliance on Ramarao Marotirao vs. Shantibai, 1977 MPU 364. The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case, an application for adjournment was made by the counsel that he had no instruction and in that case the argument was developed regarding effective representation. That case has no application to the present case. 4. Learned counsel next argued that proviso to Rule 3 of Order 17, as inserted by M.P. Amendment with effect from 27-8-1976, would be applicable to the case. The proviso to Rule 3 of Order 17 Code of Civil Procedure is extracted below: Provided that in a case where there is default under this rule as well as default of appearance under Rule 2, the Court will proceed under Rule 2. The proviso to Rule 3 of Order 17 Code of Civil Procedure is extracted below: Provided that in a case where there is default under this rule as well as default of appearance under Rule 2, the Court will proceed under Rule 2. This proviso deals with two defaults. One, the default as envisaged under Rule 3 of Order 17 and other default relating to failure of appearance as provided under Rule 2 of Order 17. Here there was no failure of appearance on part of the defendant and as such the provisions of Rule 2 would not apply. The Court, can decide the suit on merits on the failure of the parties to the suit 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 suits. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of the revision Court does not suffer from any infirmity as the view taken by the Court is correct. It is a case which is covered under clause (a) of Rule 3 of Order 17 and not under clause (b) of Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under this clause a decision of the Court is decision of merit and in such a position Order 9, Rule 13 would not be attracted. 6. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the order in the suit passed by the trial Court was under clause (a) of Rule 3 of Order 17 and not under clause (b) of Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an order passed in the suit falls within the category of the decision of a suit and to such an order. Order 9, Rule 13 is not attracted and the only remedy available to the party is the forum of appeal. 7. In view of above the petition has no merit. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Security amount deposited, if any, be refunded.