1. This review petition has been filed by the unsuccessful appellant under Order 47 rule 1 of CPC for re-calling the order dated 9.9.2009, passed by Single Bench of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 1116/2009, whereby the aforesaid appeal, preferred by the appellant Manish Kumar Sharma against the rejection of application under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this review petition is that ;

Non-applicant No.1 Jagdish filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.11,36,000/- from the applicant in this case (non-applicant No.1 (Manish Kumar Sharma) and non-applicant No.2 Kumar Pal Singh the owner and driver of the offending bus, on the ground that the applicant Jagdish was travelling as bona fide passenger in Bus bearing No.M.P.06/B.0031 on 18.4.1994. The bus owned Manish Kumar Sharma, was being driven by non-applicant No.2 Kumar Pal Singh rashly and negligently due to which it met with an accident. An FIR was lodged at Police Station, Kailaras. The applicant claimed that he sustained grievous injuries. The 1st Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No.

432/1994, after due service of notice proceeded ex-parte against the non-applicants and pronounced the impugned award on 29.10.1998 and granted Rs. 22,000/- as compensation to the applicant, Jagdish.

3. The non-applicant registered owner of the vehicle filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 read with 151 of CPC before the 1st M.A.C.T, Morena, which was registered as MJC No.1120/07. After affording opportunities to both parties, decided the same on 12.8.2009. The application under Order 9 rule 13 read with section 151 of CPC as well application under section 5 of Limitation Act and was rejected.

4. This order was challenged before this Court by the non-applicant/petitioner Manish Kumar Sharma under Order 43 rule 1 (d) of CPC. The learned Single Bench decided the same as M.A.No.1116/2009. It was observed that in view of the proviso to Order 9 rule 13 of CPC there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed in limine as it devoid of merits. The learned Single Judge also observed as under :

However, it is stated at Bar that the opportunity for evidence was prayed for which was not granted. The submission is contrary to the observation of the Court contained in para-1 in the impugned order. The appellant shall have a liberty to take appropriate legal recourse in the matter.

5. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the non-applicant registered owner of the bus Manish Kumar Sharma has filed this present review petition and claimed that no proper service was effected during the process of claim petition. Therefore, principle of natural justice has been violated and the petitioner deprived opportunity of hearing for ensuring substantial justice. It also claimed that the impugned order has been passed by the Single Bench merely on wrong observation made by the claim Tribunal. It is asserted that if is for the sake of argument it is presumed that Claims Tribunal issued summon to service at the resident of non-applicant at Chhoti Bazaria Morena, no reason has been assigned by the Process Server why it was served at a different address. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error in observing that the summon was duly served. Hence, the order of the Claims Tribunal as well as the appellate Court is not tenable in the eyes of law.

6. Heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

7. In Claim Case No.432/1994 (Jagdish v. Manish Kumar Sharma and other) notice was issued on 15.3.1996 for service to non-applicant/petitioner Manish Kumar Sharma. According to the report submitted by the Process Server, “Manish Kumar Sharma son of Gopal Sharma was found at his shop in near Barrier Morena”. When he was asked to receive the notice, he refused to take it. The witness Deewan Singh son of Satnam Singh has also attested this endorseme