The short facts in this case are that on 6th October, 1964, the plaintiff as P.W.1 examined herself and marked certain documents. She however entertained certain apprehensions in her mind that she should not obtain a fair trial in the Court in which her suit was pending. Therefore on 7th October, 1964, she filed a petition for transfer of the suit. This was opposed. The petition was dismissed, and in such circumstances the plaintiff’s Counsel reported “no instructions” but the plaintiff, however, appears to have been present in Court. The learned District Munsif, however, dismissed the suit. The question now for consideration is whether such dismissal by the learned District Munsif would enable the plaintiff to take it up in appeal as an appealable order or whether she should have filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code for, setting aside the ex parte dismissal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision in Natesa Thevar v. Vairavam Servaigaran1. There the plaintiff though physically present did not want to take part in the proceedings after the dismissal of his application for adjournment. Attention has been drawn by th