- (1.) 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 "C.P.C.") was rejected. 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.
(2.) 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 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and order dated 21.12.2010.
(3.) 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 C.P.C., the same is being assailed by means of the present writ petition on various grounds.;