In this case, it is contended that the order of the Subordinate Judge is wrong, in that it disposed of the suit on the merits; whereas as the plaintiff was absent, he ought to have proceeded under O. 17, R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the case for default, instead of under O. 17, R.

3. As against this, it appears that the plaintiff was not absent, but was represented by a pleader, who asked for an adjournment, which was refused. Patinhare Tarkatt Rama Mannadi v. Vellur Krishnan Menon (I.L.R., 26 Mad., 267), is authority for the proposition that in such a case the suit cannot be dismissed for default; but a judgment must be written and the case disposed of. No authority is cited to the contrary. It is further contended that no revision lies, as this is not an exparte decree; but the remedy of the petitioner is to proceed by way of appeal from the decree against him. The petition cannot, therefore, be brought against the order refusing restoration of the suit, on the ground that the suit was dismissed for want of evidence and was not dismissed exparte.

As I must hold that the plaintiff was present by his pleader in this case, Vaiguntathammal v. Valliammal (3 L.W., 524) is authority for holding that O. 17, R. 3 is applicable and the learned Subordinate Judge was right in the order he made. I am inclined to think that the other point, taken for the respondent, is also sound, on the authority of Chenroyan v. Rama Chetti (3 L.W., 524), but in view of my finding on the other point, it is not necessary to say anything more, with regard to that.

Assuming a revision petition will lie, I hold that the order of the Subordinate Judge was correct and there is no ground to interfere with it.

This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.

Petition dismissed.