ivil Appeal No 2847 of 1986 290 From the Judgment and Order dated 181986 of the Delhi High Court in FAO No 146 of 1986
Soli J Sorabjee EC Agarwala and Lalit for the Appel lants
TSK Iyer BP Maheshwari VN Ganpule SK Agniho tri and J Singh for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
This appeal arises as a result of leave granted by this Court against the summary dismissal of the first appeal by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi
The first appeal was filed against an order passed by Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner
The facts necessary for disposal of this case are that in a suit filed against the present appellant in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi when the matter was fixed for evidence of the defendant as the plaintiff s evidence was over and defendant present appellant s evidence was to begin when the case was taken up on 24th January 1985
The order sheet of the Court shows that no DW is present and at the request of the counsel of the defendant the case was adjourned to 7th May 1985
It is stated that on this date for some reason the case was transferred to another board and in the transferee court the order sheet showed presence of the counsel for parties and it further shows that as the case was received on transfer it was ordered to be put up on 21st August 1985
Learned counsel for the appellant disputed the mention in these proceedings about the presence of the counsel of the defendantappellant
But in any event as it is not impor tant for the decision of this appeal it is not necessary to go into that question
On 21st August 1985 it appears that there was a holi day and therefore the case was put up before the learned Judge on 22nd August 1985 and it was postponed to 30th October 1985 for the evidence of the defendant
On 30th October 1985 the order sheet showed that the counsel for plaintiff was present but no one was present for the defend ant
The Court therefore directed the case to be taken up at 1 PM
At 1 PM again the situation remained the same as it is clear from the order sheet
It also shows that none of the witnesses for defendant was also present and therefore the Court passed the order the case was called but none has appeared on behalf of the defendant and no DWs present
The evidence of defendant closed
291 Now to come up for arguments
 The next date fixed was 1st November 1985
On this date also nobody appeared for the defendant and counsel for the plaintiff who was present sought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 8th Novem ber 1985
On 8th November 1985 arguments of the plaintiffs counsel were heard and as none was present for the defendant the case was fixed for judgment on 11th November 1985
On this date also counsel for the plaintiff was present
Nobody was present for the defendant and order sheet shows that as judgment was not ready it was postponed to 21st November 1985
On 21st November the judgment was dictated and pro nounced and the order sheet also shows that the learned Judge ordered decree to be prepared
It appears that after this the defendant claimed that they came to know about the decree on 18th January 1986 as on that day the plaintiff came to take possession and therefore filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree which was dismissed by the trial court holding that the case was disposed of not in accordance with Order 17 Rule 2 but in accordance with Order 17 Rule 3 and therefore the appli cation under Order 9 Rule 13 was not maintainable
The appellant defendant thereafter filed an application for review but that application also was dismissed by the trial court
Thereafter the first appeal Was filed before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed summarily by the impugned order
Learned counsel for parties submitted at length the controversy that existed before the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure in 1976 about the interpretation of Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 17 Rule 3
Apparently there were two views
one was that Order 17 Rule 3 could be used for deciding the matter on merits if the party is present but has failed to do what was expected of that party to do and this rule could not be used against a party who was present whereas the other view was that even if a party is absent but has failed to do what was expected of him then it was the discretion of the Court either to proceed under Order 17 Rule 2 or under Order 17 Rule 3
In some decisions the High Courts have gone to the extent of saying that even if the trail court disposes of the matter as if it was disposing it on merits under Order 17 Rule 3 still if the party against whom the decision was pronounced was absent it could not be treated to be a dis posal in accordance with Order 17 Rule 3 and provisions of Order 9 will be available to such a party either for resto ration or for setting aside an exparte decree
Learned counsel placed before us a 292 number of decisions of various High Courts on this aspect of the matter
But in our opinion in view of the amendment to these two rules which have been made by 1976 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not disputed that to the facts of this case Code of Civil Procedure as amended will be applicable and therefore it is not necessary for us to go into that question
Order 17 Rule 2 and Rule 3 as they now stand reads Order 17 Rule 2 Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed Where on any day to which the beating 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 of Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit
Explanation Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned the Court may in its discretion proceed with the case as if such party were present
Order 17 Rule 3 Court may proceed notwith standing either party fails to produce evi dence etc
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 neces sary 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 clear that in cases where a party is absent only course is as mentioned in Order 173b to proceed under Rule 2
It is therefore clear that in absence of the defend ant the Court had no option but to 293 proceed under Rule 2 Similarly the language of Rule 2 as now stands also clearly lays down that if any one of the parties fail 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 upto 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 con troversy
In this view of the matter it is clear that when in the present case on 30th October 1985 when the case was called nobody was present for the defendant
It is also clear that till that date the plaintiffs 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 upto the date ie 30th October 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 there fore 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
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
Unfor tunately 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
The learned counsel for the respondent attempted to contend that in this view of law as it now stands an appli cation under Order 9 Rule 13 will be maintainable
However it was suggested that there was also an objection of limita tion about the acceptance of that applica 294 tion
It is apparent that the learned trial Court has not considered the application on merits but has only rejected it as not maintainable and that order has been maintained
This objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is not necessary for us to go into at this stage as in view of the law discussed above the order rejecting the application as not maintainable has to be set aside and it will be open to the learned trial Court to consider the application under Order 9 Rule 13 and dispose it of in accordance with that law and while so doing it may even examine the objections that may be raised by the respondent
The appeal is therefore allowed with costs
The order passed by Hon ble the High Court and also the trial court rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 is set aside and it is directed that the learned trial court will proceed to hear and dispose of the applica tion under Order 9 Rule 13 filed by the appellant in accord ance with law
APJ Appeal al lowed


Summary:
In a suit in which the appellant was defendant after the plaintiff s evidence was over the defendant was to begin his evidence on 24th January 1985
As no witness was present at the request of defendant s counsel the case was adjourned to 7th May 1985
On that day the case was trans ferred to another Court and the transferee Court ordered the case to be put up on 21st August 1985
It being a holiday the case was put up on 22nd August 1985 when it was ad journed to 30th October 1985
On that day no one was present for the defendant
The case was again taken up at 1 pm but the situation remained the same
Since none of the witnesses for defendant was also present evidence was closed and case fixed for arguments for 1st November 1985
On this date also nobody appeared for the defendant and the case was adjourned to 8th November 1985
On that day arguments of the plaintiff s counsel were heard and as none was present for defendant the case was fixed for judgment on 11th November 1985
On this date also nobody was present for defendant and since judgment was not ready it was post poned to 21st November 1985
On this date the judgment was dictated pronounced and decree was ordered to be prepared
The defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside ex parte decree urging that he came to know about decree on 18th January 1986 when the plaintiff came to take posses sion
The trial Court dismissed the application holding that it was not maintainable because the case was disposed of not in accordance with Order 17 Rule 2 but in accordance with Order 17 Rule 3
An application for review was also dis missed by the Trial Court
The first appeal too was summari ly dismissed by the High Court
Allowing the appeal 289 Held 1
The order passed by the High Court and also the trial Court rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 are set aside and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the application in accordance with law
294C 2
In cases where a party is absent only course is as mentioned in Order 173b to proceed under Rule 2
The language of amended Rule 2 also 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 case where a party which is absent has led some evidence or has examined substantial part of their evidence
Therefore if on a date fixed one of the parties remains absent and for that party no evidence has been examined upto 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
After this amendment in Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 in 1976 there remains no doubt and therefore there is no possibility of any controversy
292H 293C 3
In the present case on 30th October 1985 when the case was called nobody was present for the defendant and till that date the plaintiff s evidence had 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 upto 30th October 1985 when the trial Court closed the case of defend ant there was no evidence on record on his behalf
There fore 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
293D E 4
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 the defendant was closed nobody appeared for the defendant and therefore the Court when it proceeded to dispose of the suit on merits had committed an error
Even on the review application the 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
293F G