JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - This revision is directed against the order of the Magistrate dated October 19, 1970, by which lie rejected the restoration application filed by the applicant under section 488 (6) Criminal Procedure Code The original order under section 488 Criminal Procedure Code was passed on May 29, 1970. He had moved this application on July 3, 1970 within the prescribed period of three months. The learned Magistrate took a view that no restoration application was maintainable as the order passed by him on May 29, 1970 cannot be considered to be ex parte. 2. The facts of the case are that the application for maintenance by the opposite party who is the wife of the revisionists was filed on October 4, 1969. She had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. January 19, 1970 was fixed for the appearance of the revisionists. He filed his written statement on Feb. 25, 1970. He had engaged a counsel. Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party who were cross-examined by the counsel of the revisionists. Evidence of Smt. Shakuntal Devi was concluded on April 10, 970 April 22, 1970 was then fixed for the evidence of Munnu La1 Sharma, revisionist. On that day an a plication for adjournment was moved on the ground that he was posted at Madhya Pradesh and was not getting leave A long adjournment was prayed for. The court however, allowed only a short adjournment and fixed May 5, 1970 on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs. It appears that no body was present on May 5, 1970 and the case was then adjourned to May 6, 1970. On that day the presiding officer was busy in connection with a staff meeting. The case was then adjourned to May 16, 1970 for arguments with the remarks that no evidence has been adduced in defence. On May 16, 1970 learned counsel for the revisionists made a note to the effect that lie had no instruction from his client. Arguments of the counsel of Smt. Shakuntala Devi alone were heard and May 25, 1970 was fixed for judgment. The judgment was not ready on May 25, 1970, and as such the case was adjourned to May 29, 1970 on which day the judgment was delivered requiring the revisionists to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. 3. The judgment was not ready on May 25, 1970, and as such the case was adjourned to May 29, 1970 on which day the judgment was delivered requiring the revisionists to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. 3. The revisionists then filed the restoration application which was disposed of by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the learned Magistrate has taken an erroneous view that no restoration application was maintainable, as according to him the proceedings in the case after the counsel with- drew were ex-parte and the order was also passed ex-paste. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the case of Maung Bat Tun v. Ma Kyway, AIR 1939 Ran. 151. In that case the following observations were made : "The word ex-parte is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure but the proceedings instituted under section 488 of the said Code are of a quasi civil nature. Therefore the word ex-parse used in the aforesaid section is used in the same sense as is used in Orders 9 and 17, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore the order passed, as in this case, against an absent party at he adjourned hearing of a case is an ex-parte order. In fact, the proviso to sub-section 6 of action 488 itself makes this point clear. It states inter alia : Provided that, if the Magistrate is satisfied that he (husband or father) wilfully neglects to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte. In other words, what it means is that if he (husband or father as the case may be) wilfully neglects to attend the Court on any hearing date of the case, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte." 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on the case of Osman Gant v. Tahuranessa Begum, 1970 Cr. LJ Cal. 634. In this authority, no doubt, a different view was taken. The learned Single Judge had held in that case that the proceedings cannot be considered to be ex-parte after the written statement had been filed even though the party filing written statement did not put in appearance thereafter. LJ Cal. 634. In this authority, no doubt, a different view was taken. The learned Single Judge had held in that case that the proceedings cannot be considered to be ex-parte after the written statement had been filed even though the party filing written statement did not put in appearance thereafter. He had made the following observation : "If we consider together the two circumstances of wilfully avoiding service' and 'wilfully neglects to attend the Court' as they appear in the proviso to section 488 (6) the reasonable interpretation of the proviso would be that it is attracted to cases where the Opposite party can- not be made to or does not attend the court at all. If the opposite party before the Magistrate attends the court and thereafter fails to appear, the proviso in my view would not be attracted and an order made in the case in the petitioner's favour would not be liable to be set aside under the second part of the proviso." 6. I have given my careful consideration to this matter. With respect I am unable to agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court. It has been held in numerous decisions of various Courts that the proceedings under section 488 Cr.P.C. are quasi civil nature. Reference may be made to : Nur Mohamed v. Bismulla Jan, ILR Vol. 16 Cal. 781; Boxario v. Ingles, ILR Vol. 18 Bom. 468; Parbali v. Chotey, 1 Cr. LJ 864 and Ponnammal's case, ILR Vol. 16 Mad. 234. 7. The order passed in the Civil case in the absence of a party, even on a single day, will be considered to be ex-pare order, even though that party had put in appearance earlier. In the present case it is clear that after the evidence of Snit. Shakuntala Devi, was closed the case proceeded ex-parte in the absence of the revisionists and his counsel. It was therefore, possible for the revisionists to move the application within three months to set aside that order in the proviso of Section 488 (6) Criminal Procedure Code The learned Magistrate should have decided this application on merit and not rejected it on the ground that no such application lay. The learned Sessions Judge has, no doubt, considered the application on merits as well while disposing of the revision but findings on merit should be recorded by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has, no doubt, considered the application on merits as well while disposing of the revision but findings on merit should be recorded by the learned Magistrate. The order of the learned Magistrate, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 8. The revision is accordingly allowed. The order of the Magistrate is set aside. He is directed to decide this application expeditiously on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties of being heard and i then to proceed according to law.