JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J: - Appellant and respondent No.2 are the defendants, whereas, respondent No.l is the plaintiff in a suit filed by her and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. 2. The appellant-defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.1999 passed by District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the decree and judgment dated 19.1.1999 passed by Sub Judge (II), Nurpur district Kangra, was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence. The trial Court had dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, as despite five opportunities, plaintiff failed to appear herself and also produce evidence though when further adjournment was declined learned counsel for the plaintiff had tendered two documents Exts. P.I and P.2 on record. 3. On the allegations that defendants were in illegal and un-authorised possession of the suit property since 1983 as it was never given to them for cultivation or otherwise, the plaintiff filed suit for possession claiming herself to be the owner. Respondent No.2 defendant admitted the claim of the plaintiff in his written statement but appellant-defendant opposed it by taking number of preliminary objections and also on merits denying, her claim of ownership of the suit property by assailing the will as forged whereby the suit property was allegedly bequeated to her by its previous owner. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is also not successor-in- interest of the previous owner under the Hindu succession Act. He claimed himself to be the statutory tenant as he had been paying Galla Batai to the original owner. He also took the plea of adverse possession in the alternative. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is stranger to the suit land and not owner of the suit land as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is not successor-in-interest owner under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 qua the suit land as alleged? 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. , 6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 7. OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is not successor-in-interest owner under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 qua the suit land as alleged? 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. , 6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 7. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land from the year 1970 in lieu of Galla Batai Chliharam as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 10. Whether the suit has been filed collusively as alleged? OPD. 11. Relief." 5. Despite five opportunities neither the plaintiff examined herself nor produced any witness, on 19.1.1999 the trial Court passed the following order: "19.1.99 Present: Plaintiff not present nor the counsel Shri R.R. Sharma is present. Shri S.P. Gupta Ld. Adv. vice Shri T.R. Mahajan Ld. counsel for the Defendant. Case called several times but the plaintiff has not appeared nor her Counsel Sh. R.R. Sharma is present. It is 11 A.M. put up after some time. Sd/Sub Judge. Case called again: Present: ______ 19.1.99: Shri Atul Gupta Id. Adv. vice Shri R.R. Sharma ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Shri T.R. Mahajan ld. counsel for defendant No. 1. At this stage ld. Counsel Sh. R.R. Sharma for the plaintiff has also appeared. The plaintiff is not present nor is any PW present. The plaintiff has failed to produce evidence despite five opportunities. In my opinion, the plaintiff has already availed a sufficient number of opportunities, therefore, a prayer for further adjournment is declined. Since the plaintiff has failed to appear in the Court even today, now to come up for judgment after some time. At this stage ld. Counsel Sh. R.R. Sharma has tendered documents Ex P1 and P2 as per his statement placed on record Case called again: Present: Sh. R.R. Sharma Id. counsel for the plaintiff Sh. T.R. Mahajan Id. Counsel for the defendant No.1 The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed 11 R 3 CPC vide separate judgment....." 6. The perusal of the judgment of trial ©Banff stows that it has decided the suit on merits after taking into consideration two documents Exts. P.I and P.2 tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintff. T.R. Mahajan Id. Counsel for the defendant No.1 The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed 11 R 3 CPC vide separate judgment....." 6. The perusal of the judgment of trial ©Banff stows that it has decided the suit on merits after taking into consideration two documents Exts. P.I and P.2 tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintff. Issue No.l has been answered in negative holding that the document Ext. P.1 and P.2 are not enough to prove the case of the plaintiff that she is over of the suit property and entitled to possession thereof. Issues 2 and 3 are answered against the plaintiff by holding that she is stranger to the suit property and not owner being successor-in- interest under the Hindu Succession Act. Issues 4 to 6 and 9 are decided against the defendant and issues No.7,8and 10 are declared redundant. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 7. The plaintiff filed appeal before the District Judge, who has not made any observation with regard to the order passed by the trail Court in closing the evidence of the plaintiff as no such ground was raised before him. The District Judge has dealt with the sole plea raised before him that in view of the documentary evidence or record tendered on behalf of the plaintiff the trail Court was required to direct the defendant to adduce evidence and thereafter give opportunity to the plaintiff for rebuttal evidence, if any, as such, the suit could not be dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. According to the District Judge, documents Exts.P.1 and P.2 were copies of Jamabandi and Missal Haquiat, respectively, which were per se admissible and could not be ignored by the trail Court. On the contrary, the District Judge has held that in-sufficiency of the evidence could be considered by the trial Court after an opportunity would have been given to the defendant for adducing evidence. Accordingly, the District Judge has passed the impugned order remand. 8. In this background the question arises whether the trial Court was justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, and thereafter deciding the suit on merits by taking into consideration the evidence on record, i.e. documents Exts. Accordingly, the District Judge has passed the impugned order remand. 8. In this background the question arises whether the trial Court was justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, and thereafter deciding the suit on merits by taking into consideration the evidence on record, i.e. documents Exts. P.1 and P.2 or he was required to give an opportunity to the defendants to adduce evidence and thereafter give his decision in the suit. 9. In our considered opinion the trial Court has rightly invoked the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, and proceeded to decided the suit on merits on the basis of evidence on record and the District Judge is not right in holding that trail Court was required to give an opportunity to lead evidence to the appellant-defendant and thereafter give its decision in the suit on merits. The provisions or rules 2 and 3 or Order 17, Code of Civil Procedure were interpreted by the Supreme Court in Prakash Chander Manchanda v. Janki Manchanda. 1986(4) SCC 669: The facts of the case were that on the date when the case was fixed for defendants evidence neither the defendant nor his Counsel nor were his witnesses present. The trial Court closed the defendant’s evidence and adjourned the case for arguments. On the subsequent dates when arguments were heard and judgment was announced, the defendant remained absent. Thereafter, the defendant filed on application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the question arose whether the order closing the evidence of the defendant was passed under Order 17, Rule 2 or Rule 3, C P.C and whether he application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. was maintainable or not? In the context of these facts, oza, J. speaking for the Bench held:- .It is clear that in cases where a party is absent the only course as mentioned in Order. 17, Rule 3 (b) is to proceed under rule 2. It is therefore clear that in absence of the defendant, the court had no option but to proceed under Rule 2. 17, Rule 3 (b) is to proceed under rule 2. It is therefore clear that in absence of the defendant, the court had no option but to proceed under Rule 2. Similarly, the language of rule 2 as it now stands also clearly lays down that if any one of the parties fails to appear, the Court has to proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed under Order 9. The explanation to Rule 2 gives a discretion to the Court to proceed under Rule 3 even if a party is absent but that discretion is limited only in cases where a party which is absent has led some evidence or has examined substantial part of their evidence. It is, therefore clear that if on a date fixed, one of the parties remain absent and for that party no evidence has been examined up to that date the Court has no option but to proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with Order 17 Rule 2 in any one of the modes prescribed under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure It is therefore clear that after this amendment in Order 17, Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure there remains no doubt and therefore there is no possibility of any controversy. In this view of the matter it is clear that when in the present case on October 30, 1985 the case was called nobody was present for the defendant. It is also clear that till that date the plaintiff’s evidence has been recorded but no evidence for defendant was recorded. The defendant was only to begin on this date or an earlier date when the case was adjourned. It is therefore clear that up to the date i.e. October 30, 1985 when the trial Court closed the case of defendant there was no evidence on record on behalf of the defendant. In this view of the matter therefore the explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 was not applicable at all. Apparently when the defendant was absent Order 17, Rule 2 only permitted the Court to proceed to dispose of the matter in any one of the modes provided under Order 9. 7. In this view of the matter therefore the explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 was not applicable at all. Apparently when the defendant was absent Order 17, Rule 2 only permitted the Court to proceed to dispose of the matter in any one of the modes provided under Order 9. 7. It is also clear that order 17, Rule 3 as it stands was not applicable to the facts of this case as admittedly on the date when the evidence of defendant was closed nobody appeared for the defendant. In this view of the matter it could not be disputed that the Court when proceeded to dispose of the suit on merits had committed an error. Unfortunately, even on the review application, the learned trial Court went on in the controversy about Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 which existed before the amendment and rejected the review application and on appeal, the High Court also unfortunately dismissed the appeal in limine by one word." 10. In the light of the interpretation given by the Supreme Court a Single Bench of this Court presided over by one of use (Kamlesh Sharma, J.) has held in Para 11 of the judgment in H.H. Durga Kumari and others v. Pyare Lal, 1994 (Suppl.)SLC 390: "...It is clear that Order 17, Rule 2, C.P.C. is a general provision which applies to all those hearings in the suit where the parties or any one of them fail to appear. In such a situation, the Court has been given an option to adopt any one of the modes provided under Order 9 C.P.C. to dispose of the suit or make such other order as it thinks fit. Order 17, Rule 3(b) further provides that in the absence of parties or any one of them, the suit will be disposed of in accordance with one of the modes directed in Order 9, C.P.C. or by making such other order as the Court thinks fit even if any party to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence or to case the attendance of hi> witnesses or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit for which time has been Allowed. The only exception to this provision is as provided by the explanation to Rule 2 of Order 17 according to which the suit need not be disposed of by one of the modes provided under Order 9, C.P.C. and the Court may proceed with the case in the absence of parties or any one of the parties as if such party was present, if evidence or substantial portion of the evidence of that party has already been recorded. Order 17, Rule 3(a), C.P.C. provides for a special category of cases in which parties are present but one of them has committed a default of not producing his evidence or to cause attendance of his witnesses or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit for which time has been allowed to him. In such category of cases, the Court has been given discretion to proceed to decide the suit forthwith. In other words, where the parties are present or deemed to be present as provided in explanation to rule 2 of Order 17, C.P.C, the court may proceed with the case and decide it. How the court will proceed and what decision it will take depends upon the stage and facts and circumstances of the suit but the decision will be on merit and under rule 3(a) of Order 17, C.P.C." 11. Coming to the case in hand, we find that prerequisites for proceeding under rule 3(a) of Order 17, Code of Civil Procedure, were present inasmuch as the plaintiff was present through her counsel and she had failed to produce her evidence for which time was granted to her on the earlier date of hearing, therefore, the trial Court has rightly exercised discretion to close the evidence of the plaintiff and thereafter decided the suit on merit on the basis of evidence on record. Admittedly the plaintiff was not aggrieved by closure of her evidence and her precise grievance before the district Judge was that her suit could be decided on merits after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence to the appellant-defendant. In fact without assailing the closure of her evidence, the plea, that suit could not be decided on merits by taking into consideration evidence Exts. P.l and P.2 on record, was not available to the plaintiff. In fact without assailing the closure of her evidence, the plea, that suit could not be decided on merits by taking into consideration evidence Exts. P.l and P.2 on record, was not available to the plaintiff. If her intention was that she would fill in the gap by producing evidence in rebut after the appellant-defendant would have produced evidence, she was mistaken as she could give rebut evidence only in respect of the issues onus whereof was on the appellant-defendant and not on issue No.l onus whereof was on her. Therefore, instead of remanding the case for giving an opportunity to adduce evidence to the appellant-defendant and thereafter give decision on merits in the suit, the District Judge was required to decide the appeal on merits. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 16.10.1999 passed by the District Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of District Judge Kangra at Dharamsala for restoring the appeal to its original number and deciding it on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala on 15.1.2001. Records be sent to the Court of District Judge without further delay. No order as to costs.