1The question that arises in this appeal is whether an appeal lies against an order dismissing a suit for default.

2 Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 106 of 1980 before Sub Court, Ottapalam. After framing issues the suit was posted for trial to 20th of August 1984. An application for adjournment was presented on behalf of plaintiff. The court rejected that application. Plaintiff's counsel was not ready to proceed with the trial. Plaintiff was also absent on the date of hearing. In the circumstances the court dismissed the suit. A decree is also seen to have been drawn. Plaintiff has presented this appeal against that judgment and decree. The grievance of the appellant is that the rejection of the request for adjournment is illegal and improper. The maintainability of the appeal is questioned by learned counsel for the respondents.

3 Heard counsel on both sides.

4 O.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the procedure to be followed on the appearance or non appearance of the parties on the first hearing and O.17 regulates the procedure at the adjourned hearing. When a party who has appeared on the first hearing date fails to appear on an adjourned date the court may proceed to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document