Judgment H.L.Agarwal, J. 1. The petitioner has moved this Court in its revisional jurisdiction against an order of the learned District Judge of Muzaffarpur, by which he has allowed the application of the opposite party for restoring a miscellaneous case for fresh hearing which had been dismissed for default 2. The short facts giving rise to the present application are as follows:- - The petitioner is the wife of the opposite party. She made an application under Sec.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a judicial separation and other reliefs on the ground that the opposite party was of unsound mind for the last five or six years, in the Court of the District Judge, Muzaffarpur, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 76 of 1961. This case was transferred to the Court of the First Additional District Judge. The opposite party did not appear in spite of all attempts by the Court below and the matter was taken up for ex parte hearing on 14-9-1963, and by his judgment and order dated 30-9-1963, the Additional District Judge allowed the application of the petitioner and passed a decree for Judicial separation. Thereafter on 16-2-1965 an application purporting 1o be under the provision of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was filed by the Opposite party for setting aside the ex parte decree. This was registered as Miscellaneous case No. 7 of 1965. In this application various grounds were taken for setting aside the ex parte decree, such as, the question of jurisdiction of an Additional District Judge to decide the application under Sec.10 of the Act and others. This application was filed not in the Court of the Additional District Judge which had passed the ex parte decree, but in the Court of the District Judge himself. This miscellaneous case was dismissed for default on 8-6-68. Thereupon the opposite party filed an application under Sec.151 of the Code read with Sections 19 and 21 of the Act on the ground that on 8-6-1963, he was ill and was not in a position to attend the Court. This miscellaneous case was dismissed for default on 8-6-68. Thereupon the opposite party filed an application under Sec.151 of the Code read with Sections 19 and 21 of the Act on the ground that on 8-6-1963, he was ill and was not in a position to attend the Court. The application was resisted by the petitioner, but the learned District Judge by the impugned order allowed the same on a finding that the opposite party was seriously ill on the relevant date and was not in a position to attend the Court and as such he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the miscellaneous case on 8-6-1968 when it was dismissed for default. Against this order, the petitioner has moved this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 3. In support of this application, Mr. Awadh Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a point that the earlier application namely, Miscellaneous case No. 7 of 1965, which was filed under the provision of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, having been dismissed for default, the order was appealable under the provision of Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of the Code, Reliance was placed by him in support of this proposition on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Doma Choudhary V/s. Ram Naresh Lal, AIR 1959 Pat 121 (FB). It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the subsequent application filed under Sec.151 of the Code, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 52 of 1968, was without Jurisdiction and the opposite party should have filed an appeal against the order dated 8-6-1968, In Chandrika Singb V/s. Parsidh Narayan Singh (1960 BLJR 325) = ( AIR 1960 Pat 504 ), Mr. Justice (now Hon ble C. J.). Untwalia expressed doubts regarding the correctness of the aforesaid Full Bench decision. I have been informed that the correctness of the aforesaid Full Bench decision has been referred to a larger Bench for its re-consideration. Be that as it may, Mr. Justice (now Hon ble C. J.). Untwalia expressed doubts regarding the correctness of the aforesaid Full Bench decision. I have been informed that the correctness of the aforesaid Full Bench decision has been referred to a larger Bench for its re-consideration. Be that as it may, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the opposite party, meets this technical argument by placing reliance upon the provision, of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, which reads as follows: "Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the Court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so." Counsel submitted that Miscellaneous case No. 7 of 1965 was only labelled as an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, but in view of the allegations made in the application and the reliefs sought for in the same, it was substantially an application under Subsection (2) of Sec.10 of the Act, as the prayer made by this client was not for setting aside the ex parte decree and re-hear the original case instituted by the petitioner, but for rescinding the decree for a judicial separation itself, Learned counsel placed before me the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code in extenso in support of this contention. Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act, inter alia, empowers the Court to rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so on an application of either party to the original application on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such a petition. No indication, however, has been given in the said provision as to on what grounds or materials or in what circumstances a decree for judicial separation can be set aside and truth of what kind of facts has to be determined by the Court. There is also paucity of Judicial decisions on this question. Only one decision of the Orissa High Court in Anupama Mishra V/s. Bhagaban Misra, (AIR 1972 Orissa 163) has been cited at the Bar in support of the proposition. There is also paucity of Judicial decisions on this question. Only one decision of the Orissa High Court in Anupama Mishra V/s. Bhagaban Misra, (AIR 1972 Orissa 163) has been cited at the Bar in support of the proposition. In that case, the husband had initiated a proceeding under Sec.10 (1) (f) of the Act praying for a decree for judicial separation on the allegation cf adultery against the wife. Although the wife had entered appearance in the proceeding and was contesting the same, it was ultimately disposed of ex parte and the prayer of the husband for a judicial separation was granted. Thereupon an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code was filed by the wife. One of the pleas taken in this application by the wife was that the mandatory provision of Sec.23 of the Act to make a reasonable effort by the Court to prevent the disruption of marriage was not complied with. The petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code was treated as one under Sec.10 (2) of the Act and was disposed of as such. 4 In pursuance of Sections 14 and 21 of the Act, the Patna High Court has also framed rules under the said Act. Rule 3 lays down the form of the proceeding and provides, inter alia, that a proceeding under Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 for rescinding a decree for judicial separation shall be initiated by an original petition. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1965 was not filed in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Muzaffar-pur, which being the Court which had passed the ex parte decree, was alone competent to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte decree as such, but was filed in the Court of the District Judge. On this ground also an attempt has been made to draw support to the contention that the application which was registered as Miscellaneous case No. 7 of 1965 should be treated to be an application under Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act. It is well settled and no authority need be cited in support of the proposition that the provision of the law stated in a petition, that is, the label put to the same is of no consequence. It is well settled and no authority need be cited in support of the proposition that the provision of the law stated in a petition, that is, the label put to the same is of no consequence. The point raised on behalf of the Opposite Party has, therefore, got much substance and must be accepted. Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1965 cannot be treated as an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, pure and simple, and the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to above his no application. I have already stated that the correctness of the said decision has been doubted and the latter has been referred to a larger Bench for re-consideration. That apart, the Court below has recorded a finding in favour of the opposite party that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date the miscellaneous case was dismissed for default, and if the said miscellaneous case is treated as a proceeding under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, the point raised on behalf of the petitioner automatically fails. The application under Sec.151 of the Code which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 52 of 1968 was fully competent and maintainable in the Court below. 6. As already stated above, the point raised on behalf of the petitioner has got no merit, and the other finding being a finding of fact, could not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 7. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner having failed, this application must be dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.