The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application to set aside an ex parte judgment and award must have sufficient grounds and be filed within the prescribed time limit.

Manak Mohta, J.-This appeal is directed against the order dated 110.1995, whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgement and award.

2. Brief fact of the case for the disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner-appellant filed an application on 14.03.1995 under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC to set aside ex parte Judgment and award dated 211.1994 passed in Original MACT Case No. 50/1994 (145/88) by the MACT, Phalodi, District Jodhpur mainly on the ground that notice of claim petition was not served on him.

3. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the record of the main file, came to the conclusion that notice of claim petition was served on the appellant on 19.01.1989, again a notice was sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Slip and that was served on 06.01.1991 and Acknowledgment Slip was found in the record but the petitioner-appellant did not appear on the date of hearing. Thereafter, ex parte order was passed on 21.01.1991. It was also found that the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC was also time-barred. In this way, there was no sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte order, hence the application was rejected vide the impugned order.

4. It was also revealed from the record that the original claim file that the claim petition was filed by Smt. Pushpa Kanwar W/o Rajendra Singh & others, under Section 110 of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 stating facts therein that on 28.03.1988 at about 6.10 p.m. an accident took place near Nursury Choraha situated at Industrial Area, Phalodi between jeep No. RNB-2459 and truck No. RSF-2740 and in that accident, the driver of jeep Chandra Shekar and Raju Singh @ Rajendra Singh were died. The present petitioner was the owner of the truck involved in the accident and on that basis, he was made party as non-petitioner No. 3. He was served with notices but he did not appear, then ex parte order was passed against him. The claimants are legal representatives of deceased Raju Singh @ Rajendra Singh. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, passed the Judgment and award on 211.1994 in favour of claimants.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 110.1995 alongwith the record or the case.

6. During argument it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the petitioner-appellant was never served with notice due to that, he could not appear in Court. It was contended that the cause was bona fide and was sufficient ground to set aside ex parte award, as soon as he came to know about the ex parte award without further delay he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC alongwith affidavit but the learned Tribunal without considering the material facts, dismissed the application. The order is liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents while supporting the order of the learned Tribunal submitted that the appellant was properly served with notice of claim petition and he was aware of the proceeding. There were no grounds to set aside ex parte award as the application was also time-barred. In addition to that, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that against the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, no appeal is maintainable. The learned Counsel in support of this contention placed the authority reported in 2000 (1) WLC (Raj.) 698. On the above submissions made a prayer that without going into the merit of the case, the appeal be dismissed as not maintainable.

8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is revealed from the order of the learned Tribunal dated 110.1995 that after considering all material, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant was served with notice sent through Registered A.D. and found no ground for setting aside the ex parte order. The f