Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(c) read with Sec. 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is against an order rejecting a petition dated 14-12-1987 filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Restoration of Title Appeal No. 3 of 1983 which was dismissed for default on 3-11-1987 due to the failure of the appellants to file notices for issuance to the respondents. 2. The appellants on 31-8-1987 filed hazris and copies of the memorandums of appeal. They were directed to file notices by 9-9-1987. On 9-9-1987, however, the appellants were absent. The Presiding Officer was also on casual leave. The Incharge of the Court directed the appellants to comply with the said order by 19-9-1987. On 19-9-1987 the appellants were directed to comply with the order by 3-11-1987. On 3-11-1987 the appellants filed notices which were directed to be kept on record in view of the fact that earlier on that very day since no one had appeared on their behalf the appeal itself was dismissed. The appellants also filed a separate application for the condonation of delay. By the impugned order, their prayer has been rejected disbelieving the plea of illness of appellant No. 3 who was Incharge of the pairvi of the appeal on behalf of all appellants. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 are married sisters of appellant Nos. 1 to 3. The restoration petition was also filed on their behalf. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that even though this Court in Sank of India V/s. Keki Modi 1984 BLJR 158 had laid down that if a day has been fixed in a case for taking steps by a party, the said party would be entitled for the whole of that day for taking such steps and, thus, even though the appellants had filed notices, though later on 3-11-1987 itself, their appeal could not be dismissed for default by the learned Additional District Judge. The mistake being of Court, the appeal ought to have been restored. The Court below also erred in not taking into account that appellant Nos. 4 to 6 were married sisters who were dependent for taking necessary steps of the appeal on their brothers. 4. Mr. Narain Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. The mistake being of Court, the appeal ought to have been restored. The Court below also erred in not taking into account that appellant Nos. 4 to 6 were married sisters who were dependent for taking necessary steps of the appeal on their brothers. 4. Mr. Narain Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 8, on the other hand, submits that the findings recorded are such which could not be said to be illegal or improper and thus the appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In Bank of Indias case (supra), this Court observed as follows: In my opinion, this revision must succeed on a very short ground. Assuming that April 21, 1980 had been fixed in the case for taking steps. The plaintiff-appellant was entitled to the whole of that day for taking such steps. The case could not. have been dismissed for default of the plaintiff-Bank on the date fixed for taking steps on 21-4-1980. This is a matter to which the Court below has not adverted while dismissing the application moved by the plaintiff-applicant and its order dated July 5, 1980 stands vitiated on that ground alone. In other words, an order dismissing the suit for omission of the plaintiff-Bank to take steps could have been passed only on April 22, 1980 and not before that date. 6. In the aforementioned view of the matter, I accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that whole of 3rd November 1987 was available for them to comply with direction made earlier in regard to the filing of the notices which having been filed on that very day, the appeal could not have been dismissed for default. 7. In my view, the Court below has committed an apparent error in dismissing the appeal and erred in not restoring it back by not rectifying its mistake. It also failed to appreciate that the appellant Nos. 4 to 6 were married sisters of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 who should not have been penalised for the alleged inaction of. their Pairvikaar brothers. 8. However, in my view, this appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable as the application in question was really filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants. 9. 1 to 3 who should not have been penalised for the alleged inaction of. their Pairvikaar brothers. 8. However, in my view, this appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable as the application in question was really filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants. 9. Thus, treating it to be as a revision application specially as the entire records are before me, I exercise my jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I set aside the impugned order as it is vitiated on account of an-apparent jurisdictional error as laid down in the Bank of Indias case (supra), subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500 by the appellants to the contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 8 which must be paid to Mr. Singh within one month from today. 10. Before I part, I also direct the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously since the Us between the parties had remained pending for a considerable period.