Curgen Ven, J.

1. I think that the order of the learned District Munsif restoring the suit may be sustained but upon somewhat different grounds. The lower Court has experienced difficulty in reconciling the decisions of the Full Bench in Pichamma v. Sreeramulu [1918] 41 Mad. 286, and of Odgers, J., in Viswanatha Asari v. Sami Asari A.I.R.1924 Mad.43, but they are in truth not in conflict. The principle with which each is compatible is that in ordinary circumstances if a party is represented by a pleader, that is an appearance for the purpose of Order 9 and Order 17, Civil P. C. The party was, it is true, represented by a pleader in the present case. But there was a special circumstance which will be apparent from the B. Diary and the judgment in the suit. It appears that on 6th and 7th December 1929 two witnesses for the plaintiff were examined and the plaintiff himself was directed to appear in person on the 10th. On that day however he was absent though his vakil was present, and a further opportunity was given to comply with the Courts order. On the 13th to which the suit was thus adjourned, the plaintiff was again absent, and the Court accordingly dismissed the suit for