JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, CJ.—Ms. Ekta Sood appearing vice Mr. S.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the passing of the impugned order dated 1st October, 2004, the petitioner had filed a fresh suit against the respondent in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act with respect to the same subject-matter as was covered in the suit which was dismissed for default of appearance vide the impugned order dated 1st October, 2004. According to her, therefore, she is prosecuting the present petition qua the aforesaid impugned order not for the purpose of restoration of the suit but only for the limited purpose of this Court deciding the legality and validity of the aforesaid impugned order qua the imposition of costs of Rs. 1,000/- while dismissing the suit of the petitioner on the ground of default of appearance. The impugned order reads thus : "Case called three times at different interval of time. It is 4 p.m. None appear on behalf of plaintiff. Hence the suit is dismissed under Order 17 R 2 CPC with cost Rs. 1,000/-. File after completion be consigned to general record room. Announced in open Court." 2. As is clearly evident by a bare perusal of the impugned order, because of the non-appearance of any one on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned Court below dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus:— "2. Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed.—Where, on any day to which tho 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." 3. Since in Rule 2 there is a clear reference to Order 9 CPC, it shall be profitable to take note of Rule 8 of Order 9 CPC which reads thus:— "8. Since in Rule 2 there is a clear reference to Order 9 CPC, it shall be profitable to take note of Rule 8 of Order 9 CPC which reads thus:— "8. Procedure where defendant only appears—Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder." 4. Quite understandably, since the plaintiff had not appeared when the suit was called for hearing and because the defendant had appeared, the Court had to make an order dismissing the suit. Referring to Order 17 Rule 2 CPC, rather than Order 9 Rule 8 CPC, therefore, was totally uncalled for. The relevant provision of law which ought to have been invoked in this case, therefore, was Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That is the first error which was committed by the learned Court below. 5. The suit was dismissed with costs of Rs 1,000/-. Why were the costs imposed upon the plaintiff when the plaintiffs suit was dismissed for default of plaintiffs appearance? As noticed above, Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially Rule 8 thereof, clearly deals with a situation where even though the defendant is present, the plaintiff does not appear and the only jurisdiction which the Court has is to dismiss the suit on account of such non-appearance. Neither Rule 8 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor any other provision stipulates that because of non-appearance of the plaintiff, the suit has to be dismissed and the plaintiff has also to be burdened with costs. The learned Court below perhaps in total ignorance of law or in blatant excess of the exercise of proper jurisdiction, has passed this illegal order burdening the plaintiff with costs even while dismissing the plaintiffs suit for non-appearance. Apparently, the Presiding Officer of the learned Court below passed the aforesaid order in a hot haste, without proper application of mind and in total ignorance of law. 6. Apparently, the Presiding Officer of the learned Court below passed the aforesaid order in a hot haste, without proper application of mind and in total ignorance of law. 6. The order, therefore, to the extent it imposes the costs on the plaintiff is set aside. 7. The petition succeeds to the aforesaid indicated limited extent and is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of. -