PER SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN, J, (ORAL) 1. The Appellant Bank, allowed respondent to open a Current Account and granted him over draft facilities at its Anantnag Branch. On his alleged failure to clear the over draft taken by him, the Bank adjusted the outstanding amount against the deposits in respondents Saving Bank Account in Amirakadal Branch of the Bank. Respondent filed a Civil suit for recovery of Rs. 19,451.86 which was decreed by District Judge Bank Cases, Srinagar on 30-04-1997. Against the judgment and decree, Civil 1st Appeal 69/1997 was preferred in the High Court. This appeal was disposed of by an order dated 08-10-1997 by learned Single Judge as under:-"Nemo for petitioner, On previous date last and final opportunity was given to counsel for the petitioner to reply the quarries raised by the Court in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has neither reported back nor caused his appearance and even does not care to reply the quarries which were raised by the Court. So this court has come to the conclusion that revision which has been filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is being dismissed." 2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the above impugned order. The appeal has been admitted to hearing. In terms of Registrys report respondent is deemed served and is accordingly set exparte. The counsel submits that as the Appeal has been dismissed on merits in absence of the parties and the appeal is termed and treated as Civil Revision in the Appeal, therefore, a substantial question of law arises whether an appeal can be dismissed on merits in absence of the Appellant or his counsel and in case such an order is bad, if the Appeal can be re-admitted to hearing in terms of Order 41Rulel9CPC. 3. Upon hearing counsel, we find that the case involve substantial question of law, whether a Civil 1st Appeal can be dismissed on merits in absence of Appellant and whether such Appeal can be readmitted to hearing in term of Order 41 Rule 19 CPC. The learned counsel for the Appellant has been heard on these legal aspects of the case, with reference to relevant facts. 4. The impugned order reproduced as above, shows that the appeal is dismissed on merits rather than for default in appearance/failure to prosecute the Appeal. The learned counsel for the Appellant has been heard on these legal aspects of the case, with reference to relevant facts. 4. The impugned order reproduced as above, shows that the appeal is dismissed on merits rather than for default in appearance/failure to prosecute the Appeal. Not only so, the appeal in the order is described as the Civil Revision, rather than an appeal. However, we find that the Court could have either adjourned the appeal or dismissed it for default of Appellants appearance and non-prosecution. The option of disposing of the Appeal on merits could have been ordered after hearing the parties or in any case the Appellant and not otherwise. Even explanation to Rule 17 Order XLICPC specifically provides that the court may for appellants default in appearance dismiss the Appeal but nothing in the Rule "shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on merits." 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Ghulam Qadir and others Vs. Sikendar and others (1980 K.LJ 433) examined the law in detail on the subject and has come to the conclusion that an appeal cannot be dismissed on merits in absence of parties or in any case in absence of appellant or his counsel. The re-admission of the Appeal for hearing and decision on merits-can be done under the enablling provisions of Order41Rulel9CPC. 6. On the above principles, we are in agreement with their Lordships and answer the question raised accordingly. 7. In result, we set aside the impugned order under Appeal. This Appeal is allowed and Civil 1st Appeal 69/97 is re-admitted to hearing. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are awarding Rs. 1000/- as costs to be deposited by the Appellant-Bank in the Lawyers Welfare Fund within two weeks. Disposed of as above.