ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the landlord-plaintiff under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') arsing out of order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 05/2014, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has upheld the order dated 5.12.2013 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in MJC No. 25/2013 and has set aside the order of dismissal of an application under Order 9 rule 13, CPC and has directed for its restoration. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the appeal under Order 43 rule 1 (c), CPC was not maintainable against the order seeking restoration of application as such appeal under Order 43 rule 1 (c) of CPC is not maintainable in the light of the decision of this High Court in the case of Peerchand v. Subhash as reported in 1995 (II) MPWN SN 161, wherein it has been held that if the application for restoration of suit is dismissed for want of evidence, no appeal under Order 43 rule 1 (c) of CPC lies. 3. Facts of that case were that a suit was filed before the trial Court, which was dismissed on 3.1.1990 in default of appearance of original plaintiff. Against the said order of dismissal of the suit in default, the plaintiff had filed an application for restoration of civil suit dismissed in default. Said application for restoration was dismissed for want of evidence as despite several dates of hearing given to respondent No.1, he had not produced any evidence. Against this order, an appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge Mandleshwar, who overlooked the law laid down in the case of Gram Panchayat v. Patel Bhura Ramji as reported in AIR 1977 Gujarat 206 and allowed the appeal on costs of Rs. 100/-. In such backdrop, it was argued on behalf of the opposite party that in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Natu Prasad v. Singhai Kapoor Chand as reported in 1976 JLJ 340 , it should have been held that no appeal is maintainable against an order by which the application for restoration of the suit has been rejected. 4. 4. The fact of the matter is that the ratio in the case of Peerchand (supra), will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case because the application under Order 9 rule 13, CPC was not dismissed for want of evidence, but was dismissed for want of prosecution. There is distinction between 'dismissal for want of evidence' and 'dismissal for want of prosecution' and, therefore, since Order 43 rule 1 (c), CPC is applicable to an application filed against dismissal of an application under Order 9 rule 13, CPC for want of prosecution, the learned lower appellate Court has not committed any mistake in allowing the appeal and restoring the application under Order 9 rule 13, CPC. Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed.