S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) ). This revision application by the State of Gujarat and mamlatdar, Navsari under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code arises from the order dated 14-7-1998 of the Civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari in Misc. Civil (Fari File) application No. 41 of 1996 under which the application filed by the petitioners for the restoration of their Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1991 which has been dismissed for non-prosecution, has been rejected. ( 2 ) ). The facts of the case in brief are that the State of Gujarat and Mamlatdar, navsari filed a Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1991 against the defendants-respondents for the recovery of Rs. 83,948. 87 ps. The summons of the suit were duly served on the defendants-respondents and they had also submitted their written statements. The suit was fixed for recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners on 10-10-1995 in the trial Court. ( 3 ) ). It is a case of the plaintiffs-petitioners that they remained present through their advocate on each and every date fixed by the Court. On 27-8-1996 their suit was fixed for recording of evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners. The Advocate of the plaintiffs-petitioners was in need of some document for examination of the witnesses and he prayed for the adjournment of the matter by filing an application. This application for adjournment of the suit filed by the Advocate of the plaintiffs-petitioners was strongly opposed by the defendants-respondents and the learned trial Court declined to grant any adjournment. On the same day the suit was dismissed for nonprosecution. ( 4 ) ). Thereafter, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application in the trial Court and prayer has been made therein for restoration of the suit to its original number. This application was opposed by the defendants-respondents and the learned trial Court under its order 14-7-1998 dismissed this application hence this revision application before this Court by the plaintiffs-petitioners. ( 5 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in rejecting the application only on the ground that same has been filed after a long delay and it is barred by time. ( 5 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in rejecting the application only on the ground that same has been filed after a long delay and it is barred by time. It has next been contended that after dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, the plaintiffs-petitioners applied for the certified copy of the said order and after obtaining the certified copy thereof they filed an application on 4-11-1996. It is urged that in case the time taken in obtaining certified copy of the order is excluded, the application is not barred by limitation. It is submitted that even if it is taken that there was some delay in filing of the application but when it is not the case found by the trial Court that the plaintiffs-petitioners deliberately and purposefully made this delay or the officers have acted mala fide in filing this application, the dismissal thereof on this ground may have some justification but merely on ground that some delay has been there in filing of the application, the same should not have been dismissed. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed relevance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123 . Lastly, it is contended that the learned trial Court has acted highly arbitrary in rejecting this application. The reasons given for rejection thereof are perverse. ( 6 ) ). On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents contended that this revision application is not maintainable as this order is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. It has next been contended that the defendants-petitioners are negligent in conducting their suit and as such the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing of the same for non-prosecution. Not only this but the application for restoration of suit has also been filed after considerable long delay. Moreover, no sufficient cause has been shown for this delay and in these facts, the Court below was perfectly legal and justified in dismissing the application. ( 7 ) ). Not only this but the application for restoration of suit has also been filed after considerable long delay. Moreover, no sufficient cause has been shown for this delay and in these facts, the Court below was perfectly legal and justified in dismissing the application. ( 7 ) ). In rejoinder the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners submitted that the impugned order is appealable but as this order is passed by a Civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari in a special civil suit, the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil procedure Code lies to this Court. So, prayer has been made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners, to avoid and overcome this objection of the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents, to convert this revision application in appeal against the order. ( 8 ) ). First of all, I consider it to be appropriate to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents regarding maintainability of this revision application before this Court. ( 9 ) ). The learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents does not dispute that this order impugned in this Civil Revision Application arises from a Special Civil suit and the Appeal From Order shall lie to this Court. He further does not dispute that this Appeal From Order shall lie to this Court. The limitation for filing of the Civil Revision Application and the Court fees to be paid thereon are the same for Appeal from Order before this Court. In view of these admitted facts, the preliminary objection raised re-maintainability of this Civil Revision Application is rather of form than that of substance. ( 10 ) ). The appeal against order would have been filed in this case, same could have been heard and would have been decided by this Court. So, either way the matter has to be considered by this Court on merits and only on this technical objection raised, regarding maintainability of the Civil Revision Application, it cannot be rejected. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents as it is being much of form and not of substance deserves no acceptance. So, either way the matter has to be considered by this Court on merits and only on this technical objection raised, regarding maintainability of the Civil Revision Application, it cannot be rejected. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents as it is being much of form and not of substance deserves no acceptance. Rule 4 of Order 9 of Civil Procedure Code lays down that where a suit is dismissed under Rule 2 or Rule 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of Limitation) bring a fresh suit; or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for such failure, as is referred to in Rule 2 or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. Rule 3 of Order 9 of Civil Procedure Code says, "where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed". Rule 2 of Order 9 of Civil Procedure code is also relevant provision and I consider it to be appropriate to make the reference thereto here also, which reads as under :"where on the day so fixed it is found that the summons has not been served upon the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court fee or postal charges (if any) chargeable for such service or to present copies of the plaint or concise statements, as required by Rule 9 of Order VII the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed : Provided that no such order shall be made, if, notwithstanding such failure, the defendant attends in person (or by agent when he is allowed to appear by agent) on the day fixed for him to appear and answer. " ( 11 ) ). From conjoint reading of Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure code, I find that it cannot be said to be a case which falls under any of the aforesaid provisions. " ( 11 ) ). From conjoint reading of Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure code, I find that it cannot be said to be a case which falls under any of the aforesaid provisions. It is not case where the suit has been dismissed on the ground that summons have not been served upon the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court fees or postal charges etc. Similarly, on the date on which the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution it cannot be said that neither of the parties to the suit is appeared. If we go by the facts of this case, then on the day on which the suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution, i. e. , on 27-8-1996 the defendant as well as plaintiff were present through their Advocates. So, by no stretch of imagination the dismissal of the suit by the learned trial Court on 27-8-1996 does not fall under any of the Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Order 9 of the civil Procedure Code. ( 12 ) ). The copy of application, on which this order impugned in this Civil Revision application has been made by the Court below is produced on the record of this Civil Revision Application and I find therein the provisions of the Civil procedure Code under which same has been filed have not been mentioned either at the top of it or in the body thereof. It is unfortunate that the applications which are being filed in the Courts by the Advocates invariably provisions under which it is presented are not being mentioned at the top of it or in the body thereof. This is a matter of serious concern and I am of the considered opinion that the court should insist for mentioning of the specific provision of Act, rules etc. , under which the applications are being filed in the Courts. Not only in the courts subordinate but I am seeing that on the Civil Applications or Misc. Civil applications, which are being filed in this Court also invariably the provision under the same are presented have not been mentioned by the Advocates. Be that it may. Now I have to consider under which provision the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. Civil applications, which are being filed in this Court also invariably the provision under the same are presented have not been mentioned by the Advocates. Be that it may. Now I have to consider under which provision the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. Rule 8 of Order 9 of Civil procedure Code provides the procedure, which has to be followed by the Court where the defendant only puts appearance in the suit. This rule reads as under :"where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder. " ( 13 ) ). Rule 9 of Order 9 of the Code provides "where a suit wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit". From reading of rule 9 of Order 9 of the Code it no more remains in doubt that the suit, which has been dismissed under Rule 8 of this order can only be restored under this provision. On 27-8-1996, I find that the plaintiff was present and application has been filed for adjournment of the suit but that has been rejected. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code empowers the Court if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code empowers the Court if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Code makes a provision for procedure to be adopted by the Court on the day on which the suit is fixed and parties have not put appearance. This rule provides that where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order 9 or make such other order as it thinks fit. It is further provided therein that where the evidences or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suits is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present. ( 14 ) ). Sub-rule (3) of Order 17 of the Code is also relevant provision, which reads as under :"where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the court may, notwithstanding such default, - (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is absent, proceed under Rule 2. " ( 15 ) ). In this case, the plaintiffs-petitioners have not produced the copy of the order, which has been passed by the learned trial Court on 27-8-1996. In the absence of that order, it is very difficult to find out under which provisions of the Code, the suit has been dismissed. However, the learned trial Court below have not dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit on merits. In the absence of that order, it is very difficult to find out under which provisions of the Code, the suit has been dismissed. However, the learned trial Court below have not dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit on merits. The application has been dismissed only on the ground that it is barred by limitation and this Court is only to decide whether that order sustainable in the eye of law and in case it is not sustainable the matter has to be remanded back to the trial Court. ( 16 ) ). I find sufficient merits in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the reasons given by the Court below for the rejection of the application as barred by limitation are wholly perverse. The learned trial Court has not considered an important aspect in the matter that in case the plaintiffs-petitioners have applied for the copy of the order of the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution they could not have been blamed. It is always advisable that before taking any remedy for setting aside the order passed against a party a certified copy thereof has to be obtained and then after examining the same on merits the appropriate remedy available against it to be availed of. If we go by the provisions of Limitation act, 1963, then, whatever requisite time taken in obtaining certified copy of the impugned order, it has to be taken note of while calculating the period taken by the party concerned for filing of the application/appeal against the impugned order for the purpose of considering whether it is in limitation or not. That period has to be given set off while calculating the period taken in filing of the appeal or application. It is not the case of the other side as well as the finding of the Court below also that after excluding requisite time taken in obtaining certified copy of the order of the trial Court by the plaintiff-petitioner the application was barred by limitation. The learned trial Court was influenced by the fact only that what for the plaintiff-petitioners have waited for obtaining the certified copy, when they were knowing that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned trial Court was influenced by the fact only that what for the plaintiff-petitioners have waited for obtaining the certified copy, when they were knowing that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is not for the Courts to decide, what course has to be followed and taken by the litigant in challenging the order passed by it, but, it is for the litigants and their Advocates. In case, the litigants and their Advocates felt it necessary to take the certified copy, then nothing could have been said against them, for the course adopted by them. It should not be an approach of the Court to find fault with the litigants and their Advocates, but its approach should have been of justice oriented. The finding of the learned trial Court that as the plaintiffs-petitioners were aware of cause for the dismissal of the suit, they should have filed the application for restoration of the suit on the very day or immediately thereafter without waiting for the certified copy of the said order, is wholly erroneous and perverse. This approach is totally contrary to what the provisions have been laid down in the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation for filing of the application for a restoration of the suit dismissed for default is provided under the Limitation Act, 1963 and whatever the benefits, which are available under the Act to the litigants should have been given to him and if it would have been done, then certainly the order of the trial Court would have been otherwise than what the order it has passed impugned in this Civil Revision Application. The whole approach of the learned trial Court in this case is perverse. The impugned order cannot be allowed to stand either in the appeal or in the Civil revision Application. The substance of the matter is to be taken and when even in the revision application this order cannot be permitted to stand then only course and order may be in this case is to quash and set it aside. Even this matter is considered by treating it to be an appeal the net result would have been same. The substance of the matter is to be taken and when even in the revision application this order cannot be permitted to stand then only course and order may be in this case is to quash and set it aside. Even this matter is considered by treating it to be an appeal the net result would have been same. In case of D. L. F. Housing v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2324 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court said :"while exercising the jurisdiction under Sec. 115, it is not competent to the High court to correct errors of fact, however, gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in Cl. (c) do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. " ( 17 ) ). It is a case where the error committed by the learned trial Court clearly relates to the breach of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Otherwise also the error committed by the learned trial Court clearly relates to the material defect of the procedure effecting the ultimate decision in this case. Not only this, the learned trial Court has not considered very important and basic fact in this case also. The suit was of the year 1995 only. The suit has been dismissed on 27-8-1996 and the application for the restoration thereof has been filed on 4-11-1996, i. e. , within two months and few days thereafter. This was a suit of state of Gujarat for the recovery of the amount from the defendants-respondents and whether ultimately on merits the State of Gujarat will succeed therein or not is different matter. But the suit should not have been dismissed merely on the ground that the adjournment has been sought for by their Advocate for calling for the documents, which has been declined. But the suit should not have been dismissed merely on the ground that the adjournment has been sought for by their Advocate for calling for the documents, which has been declined. The suit fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs- petitioners and it is true that many adjournments have been sought and have granted by the Court. Even if the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners did not find favour with the learned trial Court then, instead of dismissing the suit for non-prosecution, I think it would have been appropriate to adjourn on certain terms and conditions and one of them could have with the clear understanding in case the evidence is not examined on the next date the Court will pass the appropriate order. I do not mean that the adjournment prayed for by the plaintiffs-petitioners as being the State of Gujarat should be granted by the Courts as a matter of course or right already but overall facts of the case are to be considered and courts may not be so harsh particularly in a suit which is of the Order, 1995. Moreover, the delay in filing of the application for restoration of the suit cannot be said to be culpable, deliberate, wilful and acted with mala fide. Otherwise also, this case squarely covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123 . As stated earlier after excluding the time taken in obtaining the certified copy, the application may be within limitation, on which fact the learned Counsel for the respondent has not entered into any serious dispute. ( 18 ) ). So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, this revision application deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, it is allowed. The order of the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari dated 14-7-1998 is quashed and set aside, passed. ( 19 ) ). The learned trial Court is directed to decide this application of the plaintiffs-petitioners on merits in accordance with law and keeping in view the observationsmade in this order. .