Short Note : The non-applicant-plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,600 based upon certain entries in his account book alleged to have been signed by applicant No.1. On 4-8-1973, the date fixed for hearing of the suit, the defendants were absent and the suit was proceeded ex-parte and the trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff after recording the evidence ex-parte. 2. Thereafter on 17-08-1973, the defendants filed an application for getting the aforesaid decree set aside. However, instead of mentioning Order 9, rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, Order 9, rule 4 was mentioned in the heading of the application and instead of using words "ex-parte decree" the language used was "ex-parte order". Held : Apparently the application in question was not made by the plaintiff seeking restoration of the suit dismissed in default, and as such the trial Court acted beyond jurisdiction in dismissing the application merely on the ground that a wrong provision of law was quoted, when the defendants had already moved an application for correcting the error. Similarly, the lower appellate Court was also wrong in refusing to consider the appeal on merits. As a matter of fact, the lower appellate Court should have itself directed the trial Court to allow the correction of the error in the application and then to decide the application afresh on merits by treating the same as one moved under Order 9, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Revision allowed.