Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

1. Both these revision applications are by the plaintiffs of a title suit pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Saharsa, and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The principal question that arises for decision by this court in these applications is as to whether on the failure of petitioners to produce further evidence on a date fixed for hearing in the suit, the trial court should have proceeded under the provisions of Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure, or should have taken recourse to Rule 3 thereof.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate this question, briefly stated are these : the petitioners instituted the title suite in question for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain properties from defendants first party, described in Schedule I, and for confirmation of possession of Schedule II properties. On 20.7.1978, a date fixed for hearing in the suit, the petitioners applied for time on the ground of illness of petitioner no.3, who was the main person looking after the suit, as on that account the petitioners could not arrange for further evidence. But the prayer was rejected and the suit was taken up. On that day the petitioners examined only two witnesses who were quite formal in nature, being pleaders clerks, who proved the vakalatnama and the endorsement thereon, and the case was adjourned to 22.7.1978 on that day the petitioners renewed their prayer for time. The trial court, however, declined adjournment and the petitioners, therefore, examined yet another again a most formal witness. The suit was then adjourned to 24.7.1978 (23.7.1978 being a Sunday ). On this day no step whatsoever was taken on behalf of the petitioners-perhaps, under the impression that no useful purpose would be served by even making an application for adjournment on account of the above attitude of the trial court the court below, however closed the case of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to begin their case, who examined one witness on that day and he was discharged after his evidence-in-chief. The suit was then adjourned to the next day. On that day also the defendants examined only one witness. The suit was then adjourned to 26.7.78. On this day also one witness was examined by the defendants.

4. On 26.7.78 two petitioners were filed on behalf of the petitioners. In the first petition, after giving explanation for their absence on the previous dates, they prayed for permission to adduce further evidence, and by the other petition they prayed for the recall of the defendants witnesses for a cross-examination. Both these petitioners were disposed of on 29.7.78. The court below rejected the first petition for adducing further evidence by the petitioners, but allowed the second petition for recalling the defendants witnesses for their cross-examination, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs.200. The matter was adjourned to 3.8.1978. On this day the petitioners filed an application for time to move this court against the order dated 29.7.78. Time was allowed to the petitioners subject to the condition of their depositing a sum of Rs.100 by 2.30 p. m. the same day. In this way the petitioners were obliged to deposit the said amount at once and thereupon the learned Subordinate Judge passed a subsequent order that if the petitioners failed to obtain any stay order from this court by 16.8.78, the said amount would be forfeited. Civil Revision No.1851 of 1978 is directed against the earlier order dated 24.7.78 rejecting the petitioners application for time, and Civil Revision no.1850 of 1978 is directed against the aforesaid order dated 29.7.78 whereby their petition for adducing further evidence was rejected. In this way, the purport and scope of both the applications are practically the same.

5. The prayers which have been made in the applications, on their face would not have called for any interference by this court in the revisional jurisdiction as such, but lea