An appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act against an ex-parte award requires specific provisions and is limited by the application of procedural rules.

1. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 25.10.2004, passed in MJC No. 25/2004, passed by First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby an application preferred under O.9 R.13 of Civil Procedure Code to set - aside the ex - parte award dated 29.08.2002, passed in claim case No. 13/2002, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts which are involved in this case are that a claim petition was preferred by one Jogendra Singh, before the Claims Tribunal on the ground that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. MP - 26W - 1146 driven by Harihar Ram, the appellant No. 2, which dashed the claimant, the claimant had sustained severe injuries. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle was owned by the appellant. Thereafter, a petition was preferred U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,73,000/- before the Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur.

3. During the course of proceedings, the appellants remained absent before the Claims Tribunal and as such, the Court had proceeded ex - parte against them and eventually an ex - parte award was passed on 29.08.2002. Subsequently, an application under O.9 R.13 of CPC was filed on behalf of appellant to set - aside the such ex - parte award. After hearing, the said application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.10.2004, which is under challenged in this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the rejection of the application on the ground that the provisions of O.9 R.13 of CPC are not applicable is completely against the statutorily provisions in as much as the Motor Vehicle Rules provides the applicability of the Order - 9 R.13. By virtue of R.240, the counsel further submits that sufficient cause was also shown before the court and therefore, there was no occasion to give a finding to the effect that no sufficient reasons were shown. She would further submit that order of the learned Court below is completely misconceived to the effect that no sufficient cause has been shown to set - aside the ex - parte award.

5. During the course of argument, the appellant was apprised of the case law reported in case of Ram Shiromani Mishra Vs. Shiv Mohan Singh and another AIR 1997 MP 202 . In such case principally it was held that appeal against the rejection of application under O.9 R.13 is not tenable in absence of the mandate of the statute as O.43 has not been included for the purpose of S.240 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In reply to that, learned Counsel submitted that the said judgment has not been followed by this Court and sought time to produce the order of this Court. However, the orders were not placed before this Court. The learned counsel further submit that the proposition of law has not been correctly held in such case. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that since the case has been admitted for hearing by this Court, which has not been objected by the respondents, therefore, the question of admissibility will not arise for consideration at the stage of final hearing.

6. Per contra counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant and the counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company vehemently opposes the same. They would submit that the application filed under O.9 R.13 of CPC for setting aside the ex - parte order was as vague as it could be. The application did not disclose as to on what date, the Court had proceeded ex - parte against the appellants and therefore, delay of each and every day was necessary to be explained. The counsel further submits that in absence thereof, the application is being vague and devoid of substance, it was rightly rejected by the learned Court below.

7. I ha