JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this Civil Revision, u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs assails the appellate order under Order 43, Rule 1(d), Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The suit having been decreed ex parte, Defendants flied an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The said application was dismissed for default. Against the order of dismissal, an appeal was flied. Since there was no material before the appellate court to consider the merit of the appeal, the order of the trial court was set aside and the matter was remitted back to give opportunity to the Defendants to file an application u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for restoration of the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Mr. G.H. Panda, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Petitioners submitted that in view of the decision of this Court reported in Nanak Chand Khandelwalla and Others Vs. Fakir Chand Khendelwalla and Another filing of an appeal was not appropriate and the proper course would have been to file an application u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure. When the appellate court was satisfied that there was no material, it should have dismissed the appeal. Mr. Panda also assails the setting aside of the order when the same petition was not to be considered, Mr. Panda's contention is that the Court ought not to have remitted back the matter to help a party who does not seek for the same. To reinforce the submission, Mr. Panda submitted that the Appellant could have prayed for accepting additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC where he could have explained the circumstances under which he could not adduce evidence. These steps not having been taken, the appeal ought to has been dismissed. Mr. Panda's next attack was that the provisions of Order 9, Code of Civil Procedure, being applicable to proceeding under Order 9, Code of Civil Procedure, in view of Explanation to Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court ought not to have directed the trial court to exercise the inherent power. 4. The contention of Mr. Panda has great force. The decision reported in Nanak Chand Khandelwalla and Others Vs. 4. The contention of Mr. Panda has great force. The decision reported in Nanak Chand Khandelwalla and Others Vs. Fakir Chand Khendelwalla and Another was rendered at a time when Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure, was not amended to include a proceeding under Order 9, within its scope. In the said decision, the scope of adducing additional evidence in appellate court under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, was not considered. However, interference with the appellate order at this stage by accepting Mr. Panda's submission would cause great hardship to the Defendants when the position of law was not clear. In such circumstance, when the Defendant have got the benefit of agitating the question in the trial court again, I am not inclined to interfere, with the same in this revision specially when the prejudice of the Plaintiffs can be mitigated by costs. I assess the costs at Rs. 150/- (one hundred fifty). 5. I direct that the Defendants-opposite parties in this case shall pay the same to the Plaintiffs, Petitioners within six weeks from to-day for availing the opportunity given by the appellate court, failing which the Defendants shall not be permitted to lead evidence and the order of dismissal of the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, will stand confirmed without reference to Bench. In case, the application u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, has already been filed, the same shall stand dismissed. If, however, an application u/s 151, CPC has been filed, the same shall be treated to be one under Order 9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, on payment of costs and the trial court shall dispose of the same on merits. 6. In the result, the civil revision is disposed of subject to the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed