Short Note : 1. The claim involved in the suit was about 16 Bighes of Government land claimed by the plaintiff to be his own. According to the defendant-State of M.P., the suit survey number had already vested in the State and as such was not liable to be retained by the plaintiff-ex-Zamindar. The occasion for making the ex-parte decree arose because of the absence of the counsel for the State of M.P. to put in appearance when the suit was called for hearing The counsel concerned had filed an affidavit and had also deposed before the trial Court that as he was busy in other Court he could not put in appearance. The Court below had accepted the testimony of the counsel and was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause explaining the absence. Held: Sufficiency or insufficiency of material for the satisfaction of the Court in such matters is not within the scope of interference in revision. and therefore the objection that there was no sufficient cause cannot be allowed to be urged at this stage. 2. The other objection raised was that instead of quoting the provisions of Order 9, rule 13 C.P.C. in the application, section 151 and Order 47 rule 1 C.P.C. were mentioned and, as such, the application was not tenable. In the opinion of this Court, there is no defect of substance by the quoting of the wrong provision. From the perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the parties contested the application by treating the same as under Order 9. rule 13 C.P.C. The trial Court has also proceeded to treat and decide the application as one moved under Order 9, rule 13 CPC, as is evident from the initial paragraph of the order impugned itself. Revision dismissed.