JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. This is an application asking this Court to deal under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887, with a case disposed of by the Court of Small Causes at Missouri. The plaintiff, Mr. F. Welti, brought a suit against the applicant to recover Rs. 499-12-0 for wrongful dismissal. The applicant was served with the summons on the 2nd of May last. By the summons she was directed to appear within less than 24 hours from the time of service to answer the suit, and she was warned that she must be prepared to produce all her witnesses on the following day. The applicant did not appear, and an ex parte decree was passed against her. She applied under section 17,’ sub-section I, for an order to set aside the ex parte decree. The application was refused, and the applicant moves this Court to set aside the order of refusal. The learned counsel for the opposite party raises a preliminary objection that this Court has no authority under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act to interfere, and contends that the discretion to interfere is governed by the principles embodied in section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to what was said in the Full Bench case of this Court, Sarman Lal v. Khuban, [1894] I.L.R., 16 All., 476, F.B, I am of opinion that this Court has greater power of interference under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act than it has under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at least as now interpreted. In my opinion this is a case in which I can and ought to interfere. 2. The applicant stated on oath that she had not looked at the date in the summons. The learned Judge of the court below is not inclined to believe this and holds that, if she did not look at the date, she was bound to do so, and that her omission to look at the date is no excuse for her failure to attend in compliance therewith. The learned Judge of the court below is not inclined to believe this and holds that, if she did not look at the date, she was bound to do so, and that her omission to look at the date is no excuse for her failure to attend in compliance therewith. No doubt, the applicant is to blame for not having looked at the date, but seeing that the order was for the final disposal of the suit and that she was told to be prepared with all her witnesses, I think it is very probable that it never struck her that she was being given less than 24 hours to do this. I think she may well have imagined she had several days, a week at least, to appear, answer and produce witnesses. In my judgment the learned Judge ought to have granted the application. But as the applicant was undoubtedly guilty of a certain degree of carelessness, she must, even though that carelessness was not altogether inexcusable pay the costs of the other side. I accordingly reverse the order of the court below, refusing to set aside the ex parte decree and direct the court below to fix another date for the trial of the suit. This order is conditional on the applicant paying into court below all the taxed costs hitherto incurred upto this date by the plaintiff, exclusive of the court-fee on the, plaint. These costs must be paid in within a fortnight from the date on which this order is received in the court below. If the costs are not paid in within the time fixed, this application will stand dismissed with costs.