JUDGMENT
Coutts, J.
1. The faces of this case shorf’y are that on the date fixed for hearing the plaintiff aid his Pleader ware present, in Court and an application was filed for time. This was rejected whereupon the Pleader who was the junior Pleader saying that ha had no instructions asked for time to go and consult his senior. The Court granted half an hoar’s time and again took up the case. No one appears to hare been present and the suit was dismissed. (sic)Sibseqrantly an application for res’ oration under 0. IX, Rule 9 was made and (sic)rejseted An appeal was preferred to the Subordinate Judge and the application allowed and the suit restored.
2. This application in revision has bam made by the defendant and the contention is that the dismissal was not under Order IX, Rule 8. The question for decision is whether in the circumstances there was an appearance of the plaintiff or not. Similar casea to the present case decided in this Court are the cases of Lal, i Sahu v. Lachmi Narain Singh 47 Ind. Cas. 27 : 3 P. L. J. 355. and Ramdhan Tewari v. Bishun Pragash Naran Singh 54 Ind, Cas. 716 : 5 P. L. J. 17 : 1 P. L. T. 156. in which it was held that the plaintiff had not appeared. The present ease is on all fours with the above decisions and the application is dismissed with costs.
3. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.
Adami, J.
4. I agree.