S. RAFAT ALAM AND BHAGWAN DIN, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 25. 3. 1998 rejecting the application of the plaintiff under Order IX, Rule 9 of the C. P. C. for setting aside the order of dismissals of the suit under Rule 8 of Order IX. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. ( 3 ) THE appellant filed Suit No. 573 of 1990 for specific performance. However, when the plaintiff-appellant failed to appear on the date of hearing, i. e. , 4. 1. 1996, it was dismissed under order IX, Rule 8 of the C. P. C. An application for restoration of the suit under Order IX, Rule 9 was moved on 2. 2. 1996 but the learned Ist Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, by the order under appeal dated 25. 3. 1998, rejected the same, inter alia, on the ground that from the date of dismissal of the suit, i. e. , 4. 1. 1996 till the date of filing of the restoration application, i. e. 2. 2. 1996, day-to-day explanation has not been furnished by the appellant, and that the application has not been moved by Abhay Narain Pandey who was the Secretary of the plaintiff society. ( 4 ) SRI Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the application under rule 9 was filed within time and, therefore, the learned court below erred in holding that the appellant was required to give explanation of each day from 4. 1. 1996 upto 2. 2. 1996. He further argued that as the appellant was seriously ill since 30. 12. 1995 and was medically advised to take bed rest, he could not appear on the date fixed, i. e. , 4. 1. 1996 but the learned court below without appreciating that there was sufficient cause for not attending the Court on the date fixed, wrongly rejected the application. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the suit was fixed for hearing on 4. 1. 1996 and when the appellant did not appear, it was dismissed under Rule 8 of order IX. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the suit was fixed for hearing on 4. 1. 1996 and when the appellant did not appear, it was dismissed under Rule 8 of order IX. But the appellant did not move the application under Order IX, Rule 9 and, therefore, the alleged application moved on 2. 2. 1996 being not maintainable, was rightly rejected. He further argued that the suit was filed through Jai Prakash Ojha, the Secretary of the Society but the application for restoration was moved by Abhay Narain Pandey who is not the Secretary of the plaintiff society and, therefore, at his instance it was not maintainable. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the suit was fixed for hearing on 4. 1. 1996 and was dismissed in default under Rule 8 of Order IX. It is also admitted that the application for restoration was moved on 2. 2. 1996 within time giving explanation for the absence on the date of hearing. However, the learned court below without considering the explanation furnished by the plaintiff-appellant for his absence rejected the application mainly on three grounds, viz. , (i) that no reasonable explanation for each day with effect from 4. 1. 1996 to 2. 2. 1996 has been furnished to show as to under what circumstances he had no knowledge about the order dated 4. 1. 1996 dismissing the suit in default and why the application has not been moved immediately thereafter, (ii) on earlier occasion also the suit was dismissed on 9. 9. 1994 and (iii) that the suit was filed through Jai prakash Ojha, Secretary of the Society but the application for restoration was moved by Abhay narain Pandey. ( 7 ) IN our view, the learned court below fell in error by addressing that the plaintiff was required to give satisfactory explanation of each day from the date of dismissal of the suit till the date of filing of the restoration application when admittedly the application for restoration was moved within time. ( 7 ) IN our view, the learned court below fell in error by addressing that the plaintiff was required to give satisfactory explanation of each day from the date of dismissal of the suit till the date of filing of the restoration application when admittedly the application for restoration was moved within time. ( 8 ) IF sufficient cause is made out for non-appearance of the plaintiff on the date fixed for hearing and the plaintiff approached the Court for restoration of the suit within the statutory period, in that event the plaintiff is not required to explain each day from the date of dismissal of the suit till the date of filing of the restoration application. While deciding the application under Order ix, Rule 9, the only point which is to be considered by the trial court is the existence of sufficient cause for the non-appearance. When the suit was called on for hearing and if it is proved that the plaintiff was prevented from appearing on the date of hearing on account of sufficient cause, normally the restoration application is to be allowed provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. It has not been found by the learned trial court that the plaintiff mala fidely and intentionally did not appear on the date of hearing. ( 9 ) IN para 1 of the affidavit filed along with the restoration application, it has been asserted that the deponent is the Secretary of the Society (plaintiff) since last one year and is doing pairvi on behalf of the plaintiff which has not been denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the defendant before the court below. Thus, the statement that Abhay Narain Pandey was the Secretary since last one year on the date of dismissal of the suit in default goes uncontroverted. ( 10 ) THE submission advanced on behalf of the defendant that the application was not moved under Order IX, Rule 9, as the provision was not mentioned on the application and, therefore, it was rightly rejected, has also no force and deserves to be rejected. It is settled legal position that it is not the form of petition or application but it is the substance and contents, which is to be seen. It is settled legal position that it is not the form of petition or application but it is the substance and contents, which is to be seen. Non-mentioning of the provision or its wrong labelling will have no effect and the Court is required to look to the contents and substance of the application. From a perusal of the application dated 2. 2. 1996, it is apparent that it was filed to recall the order dated 4. 1. 1996 dismissing the suit in default. Therefore, in effect it was an application under Order IX, Rule 9 and the simple question which the learned trial court had before him for consideration was as to whether on the date fixed for hearing, the plaintiff appellant was prevented from attending the court because of sufficient cause or not and the explanation furnished by him for his non-appearance constitutes sufficient cause or not. ( 11 ) IN the case in hand, the explanation furnished by the plaintiff appellant was that he had fallen ill and was advised bed rest till 15. 1. 1996 and, therefore, could not appear. The defendant did not give any evidence to show that the plaintiff was not ill during that period. In our opinion, the explanation furnished by the plaintiff for non-appearance does constitute sufficient cause for his absence. In this view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 12 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Civil Judge dated 25. 3. 1998 is hereby set aside and the Suit No. 573 of 1990 is restored for decision on merit. We further hope and trust that the learned trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. Learned counsels for both the parties have made statement on behalf of their clients that they will not seek unnecessary adjournments and will appear before the court below on the date of hearing. ( 13 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. .