JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - This is an application u/s 115 of the CPC by the Plaintiff arising out of an order passed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code by the Second Additional Munsif of Allahabad by which an ex parte decree has been set aside and the suit restored to its original number. (sic) A good deal of time of the Court has been vasted over the matter on account of the fa(sic) that the learned Munsif has not tried to appreciate the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 and he has used rather loose language in arriving at the conclusion that in the interest of justice (sic) requires that the suit should be reheard. 2. The facts are these. The suit was instituted by the Plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10 from the Defendant on the ground of an alleged slander. Summonses were taken out by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff accompanied the process server to effect service upon the Defendant. The process report was to the following effect. At a distance of about 100 paces from the house of the Defendant, the Plaintiff pointed out a certain woman and indicated to the process server that she was the Defendant. That woman entered into a house the outer door of which was open. The process server shouted out several times but the woman did not come out. The process server was, therefore, obliged to effect service by affixation on the residence. 3. An ex parte decree followed on 27-5-1949. In execution of that decree certain trees were attached in October 1949. On 2-1-1951 an application was made by the Defendant for the setting aside of the ex parte decree and it was stated therein that the Defendant became aware of the decree five or six days before that date. In support of that application an affidavit by the Defendant's husband was filed. No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. On the date of the hearing of the application for restoration the Defendant was examined on oath by the court and the Defendant stated that for about six months she had been living at her father's house in village Damni-Mau where her daughter had been ill. No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. On the date of the hearing of the application for restoration the Defendant was examined on oath by the court and the Defendant stated that for about six months she had been living at her father's house in village Damni-Mau where her daughter had been ill. In cross-examination it was brought out that her husband was living at the village house and he used to visit her at her father's place from time to time and that the attachment was made about one and a half years earlier. No evidence was produced in the restoration proceedings by the Plaintiffs. The learned Munsif thereupon passed the following order which has been impugned in this Court: This is an application for restoration of an ex parte decree against the Defendant. The application is supported by an affidavit. The Defendant examined herself and deposed that she was not at the house for the last six months and so she could not know of the service of the summons. She has admitted in her cross-examination that her husband used to live in the house and he used to visit her. There has been gross negligence on her part. But in the interest of justice, I allow this application. The suit is restored to its original number on payment of Rs. 15/ - as costs to be paid within a week. 4. Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC lays down that "in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a Defendant, he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfied the court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing the court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit." 5. The essential condition to which a court has to focus its attention before passing an order under Order IX Rule 13 is that the summons has not been duly served or that the Defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. The essential condition to which a court has to focus its attention before passing an order under Order IX Rule 13 is that the summons has not been duly served or that the Defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Here the plea of the Defendant was that she was not duly served. The learned Munsif while not expressly coming to the finding that the Defendant was not duly served accepted the contention of the Defendant that she could not know of the service of the summons, and that this was sufficient cause. The use of the words "there has been gross negligence on her part" was rather unhappy and if the learned Munsif thereby meant that she had had knowledge of the suit more than thirty days before making the application for restoration and that that disentitled her from making an application for restoration, that should have been expressly stated. Failure, however, to express himself on this point will not give the aggrieved party the right to come up in revision u/s 115 of the Code. 6. It is now settled, so far as this Court is concerned, by a number of decisions that the court which passed an ex parte decree cannot set it aside apart from acting under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 and the person making an application for restoration must satisfy the court that the summonses were not duly served or that he was prevented by some sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. There is no inherent power which can be exercised in the matter apart from Order IX Rule 13. 7. A reference may be made to the case of a Ganesh Prasad Sahu Vs. Dukh Haran Sahu, AIR 1922 All 441 . In that case it was held that an order setting aside an ex parte decree cannot be set aside by the High Court in revision for the simple reason that the validity of such an order could be attacked u/s 105 of the CPC in an appeal from the final decree passed in the suit. 8. This decision was approved of by this Court in A.H. Ghaznavi and Another Vs. Sardar Gurcharan Singh . 9. In Swadeshi Bima Co. Ltd. Vs. 8. This decision was approved of by this Court in A.H. Ghaznavi and Another Vs. Sardar Gurcharan Singh . 9. In Swadeshi Bima Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Shiv Charan Das, AIR 1948 All 315 it was held that though it is true that Order IX is not exhaustive of the jurisdiction or the power of the court to restore suits or set aside ex parte decree, but the necessary foundation for the exercise of the power inherent in a court outside Order IX must be properly laid. The court must apply its mind. But the exercise of the mind presupposes some material to which it can be applied and if there are some and the court has considered them, the High Court in revision cannot interfere with the discretion of the court on the ground that the quantum of evidence or the materials was not enough. 10. In matters of revision a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radha Kissen Chamria and Others, AIR 1953 SC 23 has made the position still more clear. The Supreme Court in reviewing certain earlier decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council observed that an error in the decision of a subordinate court does not by itself involve that the subordinate court has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revision under Sub-section (c)of Section 115 and that if the erroneous decision results in the subordinate court exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, the case for revision arises under Sub-section (a) or Sub-section (b) and Sub-section (c) can be ignored. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" do not cover either errors of fact or law. They do not refer to the decision arrived at, but to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities have been complied with. 11. Taking the totality of the circumstances in the present case into consideration, I am of opinion that although the order passed by the learned Second Additional Munsif is couched in rather ambiguous language, yet the discretion exercised by him in setting aside the ex parte decree is sound in law and the order should not be interfered with in revision. Taking the totality of the circumstances in the present case into consideration, I am of opinion that although the order passed by the learned Second Additional Munsif is couched in rather ambiguous language, yet the discretion exercised by him in setting aside the ex parte decree is sound in law and the order should not be interfered with in revision. The application is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs of this revision.