( 1 ) THE petitioners herein were the original plaintiffs in O. S. No. 129 of 1984 and O. S. No. 53 of 1982 respectively pending on the file of the Prl. Subordinate judge, Chittoor. The respondents herein were the defendants.

( 2 ) C. R. P. NO. 3724 of 1994 arises out of the judgment passed in C. M. A. No. 42 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, which arises out of I. A. No. 699/88 in O. S. No. 129 of 1984.

( 3 ) C. R. P. NO. 3779 of 1994 arises out of the judgment passed in C. M. A. No. 43 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, which arises out of LA. No. 700/88 in O. S. No. 53 of 1982.

( 4 ) THE suits filed by the petitioners herein were dismissed. Against the said orders, the petitioners herein preferred two Interlocutory Applications i. e. , i. A. No. 699/88 in O. S. No. 129/84 and I. A. No. 700/88 in O. S. No. 53 of 1982 respectively in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. Both the I. As. , alleged to have been filed under Order IX Rule 9 C. P. C. to set aside the orders of dismissal. Both the I. As. , were dismissed by the Principal subordinate Judge, Chittoor. Against the said orders, the above said c. M. A. Nos. 42 and 43 of 1992 were filed and they were disposed of by the learned District Judge,chittoor by a common order and therefore these two c. R. Ps. , are also disposed of by a common order.

( 5 ) THE brief facts leading to the above litigation can be narrated as follows: that one K. Venkatrama Naidu plaintiff in O. S. No. 129 of 1984 filed this suit seeking to set aside the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh made in Memo No. 3726/b2/72 dated 11-7-1975 directing assignment of Ac. 3-29 cents of the plaint schedule property to the 2nd defendant and for costs. He had also filed another suit O. S. No. 53 of 1982 seeking the order of injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 7 by way of permanent injunction from alienating the plaint schedule properties. Both the suits were part heard and when the plaintiff in both the suits was present but did not proceed with the trial of the cases and hence the suits filed by him were dismissed by the learned judge. The plaintiff i. e. , K. Venkatrama Naidu preferred I. A. No. 699 of 1988 in O. S. No. 129/84 and I. A. No. 700/88 in O. S. No. 53 of 1982 on the file of principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor under Order IX Rule 9 C. P. C. seeking to set aside the orders of dismissal dated 22-7-1988 passed against him and to restore the suits. These I. As. , were dismissed by the learned Judge and hence c. MA. Nos. 42 and 43 of 1994 were preferred. Both the C. M. As. , were dismissed and hence the revisions.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts as stated above, the point arises for consideration whether the orders passed by the learned Judge dismissing the suits are the orders under Order IX Rule 8 C. P. C. or they are the orders under Order XVII rule 2 C. P. C. or they are the orders under Order XVII Rule 3 C. P. C.

( 7 ) AS stated in the foregoing paras of the order, the petitioners i. e. , the plaintiffs started leading evidence in the lower Court. In other words, both the suits were part heard and the plaintiffs side was being heard by the learned judge. On the date of dismissal though the original plaintiff was present in the Court, refused to lead evidence on the ground that his Advocate was not present and the suits involved complicated questions of facts and law. The learned Judge did not accept the contention of the original plaintiff and the suits were dismissed.

( 8 ) WE have now to see as to whether the aforesaid orders of dismissal come under the purview of Order IX Rule 8 C. P. C. Order IX Rule 8 C. P. C. reads as follows:"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 adm