JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha 1. A. N. Bhargava, R. C. Shukla. for Petitioner. V. C. Srivastava for Respondents. Gopal Lal Sijuwar. the petitioner, who figures as defendant in Original Suit No. 278 of 1984 (Munsif West Sampat Lal and others v. Gopal Babu, seeks to challenge the order and judgment of the TV Addl. District Judge. Allahabad dated 20th April, 1985, passed in Civil Revision No 439 of 1984, purporting to confirm the decree and judgment dated 28th September, 1984, passed by the XIII Addl. Munsif, Allahabad. 2. In paragraph 10 of his written statement filed in the trial court, the petitioner stated that he had no objection to the suit of the plaintiffs, respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 before this: Court. On this admission, the learned Munsif pronounced the judgment and decreed the suit on 28th September, 1984 which it appears, was the first date of hearing in the suit. The factum of delivery of Judgment was also recorded in the order-sheet of the suit. In the order-sheet the provisions under which the judgment was delivered is quoted as Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, hereinafter called the Code. 3. The decree and the judgment passed by the learned Munsif was sought to be challenged in the revision wherein the learned IV Addl. District Judge passed the impugned (order dated 20th April, 1985 dismissing the revision and confirming the order of the learned Munsif. 4. Before the learned Addl. District Judge It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Munsif acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irrgularity in decreeing the suit under Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code in as much as the said provision was not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention of the petitioner that the provisions of rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code were not attracted is correct. The contention of the petitioner that the provisions of rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code were not attracted is correct. Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code provides that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce the judgment against him or make such order in-relation to the suit as it thinks; fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. Indisputably, in the instant case, there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to file a written statement Failure to file a written statement is a condition-precedent for the application of the provisions of Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code. 5. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Munsif indicates that the foundation of the decree and judgment passed by him is the admission of the petitioner in paragraph 10 of his written statement. On the aforesaid admission, the learned Munsif acquired the jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment dated 28th September, 1984, followed by the decree of the date, and in doing so he neither exercised a Jurisdiction not vested in him by law, nor he failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, nor did he act in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, inviting interference under section 115 of the Code. 6. Rule 1 of Order XV of the Code provides that where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or fact, the Court may at ones pronounce the judgment. The source of the jurisdiction exercised by the Munsif in pronouncing the judgment and passing the decree, on the basis of the admission of the petitioner is, thus clearly traceable in the said provision of Rule 1 of Order XV of the Code It is true that the learned Munsif recorded in the order-sheet that the judgment was delivered under order Will Rule 10 of the Code Obviously, the quotation of the said provision of the Code was wrong. But it is well settled that mere non mention or wrong mention of the provision of law cannot invalidate an order if the power and jurisdiction to pass the same is traceable to any provision of the Statute under which the order is passed. In the instant case, the power and jurisdiction to pass the decree and judgment dated 28th September, 1984 exercised by the Munsif is traceable in Rule 1 of Order XV of the Code. In the circumstances noted above, the learned IV Addl. District Judge, was right in dismissing the revision and upholding the decree and judgment of the learned Munsif. The order and judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge does not suffer from any such infirmity which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of its special and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.