Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The short question is, which is the provision that applies to the facts - Rule 2, or Rule 3 of Order 17, Civil Procedure Code? The lower Court has held that the suit could not be deemed to have been decided ex parte, that the provision applicable therefore is Rule 3 and that the petitioners remedy, if any, would be by way of preferring an appeal against the decree passed. Consequently the application under Order 9, Rule 13, filed upon the footing that the decree was passed ex parte, was rejected. We are clear that the lower Courts order cannot be sustained.

2. On the 14th July, the first witness for the defence was examined and at the defendants request the case was adjourned to the 30th July. On that day, two further witnesses on their behalf were examined and the case was again at their request adjourned to the 6th August. On the adjourned date, neither the defendants nor their vakil was present; another Advocate appearing on their vakils behalf applied for an adjournment on the ground that some witness had not come and that the vakil on the record was ill. The Court refused the adjournment and passed a decree. The question is as already stated, is t