This certainly constitutes substantial compliance with Section 1032's requirements of filing a motion with reasonable notice to the adverse party. See Rollow v. Frost Saddler, 1916 OK 60, ¶ 5, 154 P. 542, 544. It is therefore appropriate to address the merits of Plaintiffs assertion of error in the trial court's refusal to vacate the dismissal for "irregularity in obtaining the order." ¶ 16 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated:

However, this court has also fully recognized the power and authority of the district court, at the same term, to vacate a dismissal entered by the court and reinstate a cause for proper purposes, or to strike from the files a purported document of dismissal filed therein. See Armstrong v. Coleman, 87 Okla. 288, 210 P. 1018; Harjo v. Black, 49 Okla. 566, 153 P. 1137; Rollow v. Frost Saddler, 54 Okla. 578, 114 P. 542; Wood v. Hines, 117 Okla. 86, 245 P. 846. The briefs of both parties recognize the right of the trial court to so proceed in proper cases. It is true the plaintiff contends this is not a proper case for such action on the part of the trial court, but with that contention we do not agree.