( 1 ) THIS second appeal is filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 38 of 1987. The sole respondent filed the suit against the appellant and two others, for the relief of declaration of title and confirmation of possession, or in the alternative, for recovery of the possession of suit schedule property, to an extent of ac. 3-01 gts, in Sy. No. 356 of Domadugu village of Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District. Initially, the suit was decreed ex parte, and thereafter, it was contested by the parties. On 31-8-2000, it was decreed on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant alone filed A. S. No. 45 of 2000, in the Court of iv Additional District Judge (Fast Track court), Medak at Sangareddy. Through its judgment, dated 3-3-2003, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal. ( 2 ) SRI G. Anjappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is contrary to the specific provisions of Rule 17 of order 41 C. P. C. , and that it is liable to be set aside. He contends that when C. P. C. clearly prohibits the dismissal of appeal on merits, when the Counsel for the appellant is absent, the lower appellate Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter. ( 3 ) SRI Patlolla Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant was given number of opportunities to proceed with the matter, but, in spite of the same, he did not co-operate with the lower appellate court. He submits that the lower appellate court was left with no alternative, and ultimately proceeded to dismiss the matter, on merits. ( 4 ) THE short point that falls for consideration in the second appeal is, as to whether the lower appellate Court has justified in dismissing the appeal, on merits. It is not in dispute that on 3-3-2003, the date on which the appeal was heard, there was no representation for the appellant. Rule 17 of Order 41 C. P. C. enables the court to dismiss the appeal, if there is no representation for the appellant. Explanation- I added to it, through Act 104 of 1976, directs that Rule 17 (1) of Order 41 C. P. C. shall not be construed, as empowering the court to dismiss the appeal, on merits. Rule 17 of Order 41 C. P. C. enables the court to dismiss the appeal, if there is no representation for the appellant. Explanation- I added to it, through Act 104 of 1976, directs that Rule 17 (1) of Order 41 C. P. C. shall not be construed, as empowering the court to dismiss the appeal, on merits. In other words, the appellate Court cannot dismiss the appeal on merits, in case there is no representation for the appellant. In such a situation, the appeal had to be dismissed for default. ( 5 ) DISMISSAL of the appeal, on merits, had its own consequences. It disables the party from filing an application under rule 19 of Order 41 C. P. C. Challenge to such a decree has to be made, only by filing a second appeal, by paying the entire Court fee. The scope of interference, under Section 100 C. P. C. , is very limited, and the circumstances that led to the absence of appellant, or his Counsel, hardly constitutes a substantial question of law. When such are the drastic consequences, flowing out of dismissal of an appeal on merits, in the absence of appellant, and when there is clear prohibition against the lower appellate Court from dismissing the appeal on merits in such cases, A. S. No. 45 of 2000 ought not to have dismissed, on merits. ( 6 ) ON this short ground, the second appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court, in A. S. No. 45 of 2000, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court, for fresh disposal and consideration. ( 7 ) IT is represented by the learned counsel for the parties that the appeal deserved to be heard by the Fast Track court, which is functioning at Medak, and that the appeal has to be sent to that Court. Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken, while allotting the appeal for hearing. There shall be no order as to costs.