JUDGMENT The tenant/O. P. filed all application under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 1193 of 1978 in the court of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, Bench No. 11. On 21.2.81 this application was dismissed for default. On that very day the applicant filed a petition under S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code which was numbered as Misc. Case No 574 of 1980. During the pendency of this application the petitioner came up with a petition for amendment by way of treating the petition under S. 151 as one under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. Code. This application is annexure 'C'. In paragraph 4 of this petition it is stated that in the cause title and heading of the application there is written as "An application under S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code" which shall be deleted therefrom and in that place and stead, of the words will be inserted and/or written therein as "an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code." 2. Learned Judge with reference to the decision in the case of Hazi Rustam Ali v. Emamuddin Khan & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 Cal. 81 allowed the application for amendment or in other words the original application under S. 151 was treated as one under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. Code. 3. It is against this order, the landlord has come up this Court in revision. Mr. Sudhis Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, contends that an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. Code being barred by limitation on the date of filing of the application for amendment, the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment, which converted the application under S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code into a proceeding under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. Code. It is further contended that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment will take away valuable right accrued to the petitioner by the law of limitation. 4. It is further contended that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment will take away valuable right accrued to the petitioner by the law of limitation. 4. In the case reported in AIR 1981 Cal 81 referred to by the learned Judge it is held that where a suit was decreed ex parte, and an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for restoration of the suit was also dismissed for default, in view of the amended provision of S. 141 two alternative remedies were available to the applicant. He could file an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with S. 141 for the restoration of the application dismissed for default or an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(C). As the Code provided for alternative remedy, remedy under S. 151 was not available. Possibly, this decision led the applicant to convert the application under S. 151 C. P. Code into one under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. Code. 5. According to Mr. Dasgupta, in view of this decision the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under S. 151 C. P. Code and as such it followed that it had no jurisdiction to allow the subsequent amendment. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mst. Zohra Khatoon v. Zanab Md. Jane Alam & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 Cal 133 . It is held therein that the granting an amendment postulates an authority of the court to entertain the suit and make an order for amendment therein. But where the court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit it cannot make an order for amendment to bring the suit within its jurisdiction. 6. In this view of the matter it is to be even whether the court below had jurisdiction to entertain an application for restoration of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code, which was described as an application under S. 151 C. P. Code. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the O. Ps cites the decision in the case of Harendra Kumar Ray v. Emamuddin Sah & Ors. reported in 75 CLJ 294. In this case it is held by Mr. Justice. Mr. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the O. Ps cites the decision in the case of Harendra Kumar Ray v. Emamuddin Sah & Ors. reported in 75 CLJ 294. In this case it is held by Mr. Justice. Mr. Justice C. C Biswas that in order to determine whether a court had jurisdiction to entertain an application, the test should be not how the application is described by the petitioner but what it contained. In this case it is held that when an application described as an application under S. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not strictly come within the scope of that section, that did not ipso facto deprive the court of jurisdiction to deal with it, if there was some other section of the Code under which it could be dealt with. Next reference is made to the decision in the case of Trailakhya Nath Maity v. Bimala Sundari Dasi reported in 2 ILR Cal. 385. It is held therein that the court, in the administration of justice, will not refuse any application which on the merits the Court can grant, simply because the applicant asked the court to exercise its admitted powers under a wrong section. The judicial procedure has been framed for the furtherance of justice and not to defeat it and the court cannot refuse to act in aid of justice merely on technical grounds. In support of such decision reliance was made on the decision of a Division Bench in the case of Bechu Singh & anr. v. Bicharam Sahu reported in 10 CLJ 91. at p. 101 and 102. In this case Mr. Justice Mukherjee speaking for the court observed that it is not to be supposed that a court in the administration of justice will refuse an application which on the merits it ought to grant and in law can grant, simply because the applicant asked the court to exercise its admitted powers under a wrong section. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for restoration of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C P. Code which was dismissed for default. Would such jurisdiction be ousted simply because such application was described as one under S.151 C.P. Code. But in view of the decision reported in AIR 1981 Cal. Would such jurisdiction be ousted simply because such application was described as one under S.151 C.P. Code. But in view of the decision reported in AIR 1981 Cal. 81 this application by way of amendment was prayed to be altered as one under Order 9 Rule 9 C P. Code. So, this wrong description of the application for restoration of a case dismissed for default would not ipso facto deprive the court of jurisdiction to deal with it. It is rightly pointed out by Mukherjee, J. in the case reported in I.L.R. 2 Cal 385 that the Court in the administration of justice will not refuse any application which on the merits the court can grant simply because the applicant asked the court to exercise its admitted powers under a wrong section. The mistake as to mentioning of the section, under which the relief is claimed is one which does not go to the very root of the case. So the prayer for amendment ought not to be refused on technical grounds. Again, once the application for amendment is allowed, it 'will be presumed that such an application for restoration was made on 2.2.81 and as such the question of limitation cannot arise. 8. This application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim order already granted will stand vacated. Application dismissed.