This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.5.2000 in M.J.C. No. unregistered 2000, whereby an application for restoration of Civil Appeal No. 26-A/90 was dismissed summarily. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants filed the aforementioned appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1990 in Civil Suit No. 94-A/87 by Civil Judge Class-II Harda. The said appeal was dismissed in default on 27.4.2000. An application was filed for restoration of the said appeal. It appears that in the said application it was mentioned that it was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The learned lower Appellate Court by the impugned order dismissed the said application summarily by observing that the application has been filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC while there is a specific provision for restoration of the appeal; hence, the application was not tenable. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that merely non- mentioning of the provision in the application or wrong mentioning of the provision would not by itself be a sufficient ground for dismissing the same and as the application filed by him was for restoration of the appeal it should have been treated as an application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contentions as above appear to be justified. There was no justification for the Lower Appellate Court to have dismissed the appeal merely because the application praying for restoration was purportedly filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, as mentioned therein. In fact, the learned lower Appellate Court should have treated it as an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC, and should have proceeded to decide it on merits. In view of above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the application for selling aside the dismissal and its restoration on merits in accordance with law.