Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Since a simple legal issue is involved in the matter, I do not propose to issue notice to the respondents.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 9.10.2014 passed by the Tribunal by which the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as “CPC”) was rejected.

2. Brief facts give rise to the present writ petition are as follows :

The husband of the petitioner No. 1, namely, Shri Hansraj Singh died on 16.6.2005 due to an accident caused by the Ambassador Car No. DL-01-CH-0189 belongs to respondent No. 1. Thereafter petitioners had filed a motor accident claim petition No. 311 of 2005 before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Etah on 1.8.2005.

It appears from the record that in the said claim petition documentary as well as oral evidence were led by the claimants and had been adduced before the learned Tribunal on 21.7.2009 and thereafter, file has been put up for arguments and learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.9.2007 had proceeded ex parte against the defendants. It also appears from the record that the respondent No. 3 had moved a recall application dated 12.10.2009 for recalling the order dated 28.9.2007, which was allowed on the cost of Rs. 125/-. As alleged by the petitioners, the said recall order had been passed without giving any notice or information to the petitioners by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 23.4.2010.

3. It has also been alleged in the writ petition that neither the counsel for the petitioners nor the Tribunal had send any notice to the claimants/informant and proceeded ex parte against the petitioners and without considering the documentary as well as oral evidence of the petitioners, rejecting the claim of the claimants/petitioners vide an order dated 21.12.2010 on the ground that the claimants/petitioners could not prove their case. It has also been alleged that the said order had come into the knowledge of the petitioners on 6.12.2012 through counsel Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh. Thereafter, the petitioners had immediately moved recall application on 10.4.2012 under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and order dated 21.12.2010.

4. It has also been averred that the petitioners have also filed delay condonation application alongwith said application. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 9.10.2014 had rejected the application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, the same is being assailed by means of the present writ petition on various grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has precisely argued that the order impugned dated 9.10.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal is ex facie, illegal, perverse and cannot be sustained on the ground that while rejecting the application, the learned Tribunal has held that the petitioners had wrongly filed the recall application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC whereas they had to move the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and he further makes submission that sufficient cause were shown by moving the delay condonation application for setting aside, the ex parte order dated 21.12.2010, but the learned Tribunal has not considered the same and rejected the valuable case of the petitioners merely on the ground of technicality.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

In the present matter, the petitioners had filed the motor accident claim petition No. 311 of 2005 before the motor accident claim tribunal, Etah and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.9.2007 had directed the matter may be proceeded ex parte against the defendants. It appears from the record that the respondent No. 3 had moved a recall application which was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 23.4.2010. The said claim petition was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 21.12.2010. It is apparent from the record that as per the date of know