HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10661 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.7.2025 passed by the Revisional Court as well as the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit and by order dated 7.2.2020, the Trial Court directed the suit to proceed ex parte against the defendant - petitioner. Petitioner moved an application for recalling the order dated 27.2.2020 made under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC though it has been conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application ought to have been moved under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and not under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that merely mentioning the wrong provision of law will not change the nature of the proceedings. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on merits. Petitioner preferred a revision treating the application to be under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. The said application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that the application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which is appealable and, therefore, revision will not lie. It has also been held by the Revisional Court that in the memo of revision, it has not been stated by the revisionist whether the application was given under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. View taken by the Revisional Court is erroneous. It is the nature of application which is material and incorrect mentioning of provision of law will not change the nature of proceedings. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Deep Srivastava, Amit Kumar Satsangi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Maneesh Kumar Santosh Kumar Soni @ Mukesh Kumar Soni .....Petitioner(s) Munna Lal Gupta .....Respondent(s) 3. Shri Maneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the proposition of law that against the order passed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, a revision lies. 4. In view of the same, the order dated 22.7.2025 passed by the Revisional Court is hereby set aside and the Revisional Court is directed to decide the revision afresh after treating the same against an order passed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties provided there is no other legal impediment. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. September 9, 2025 Rishabh A227 No. 10661 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad