1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.647/2007 Dhanna v. Rameshwar & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 24th January, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Manish Pitaliya, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, for the respondents. .... To challenge the order dated 1.9.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Pratapgarh, rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, this misc. appeal is preferred. The factual matrix of the case is that a claim made by the present appellant as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act was came to be rejected for want of prosecution by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh on 27.8.2004. To get the same restored, an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure was preferred by the claimant stating therein that he was not aware about dismissal of claim for want of prosecution. It was stated that the moment the claimant came to know about dismissal of the claim for want of prosecution he submitted an application for restoration and also for condonation of delay in 2 filing restoration application. Learned District Judge (also exercising powers of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) rejected the application on the count that the claimant failed to explain day to day delay in filing the restoration application. I have examined the order impugned. The applicant appellant is a claimant who has lost his son in an accident. In the claim raised by the appellant there cannot be any intention of the claimant to avoid hearing of the case intentionally. As a matter of fact what it appears is that the claimant himself is a victim of non presence of his counsel. In totality of the circumstances warrants restoration of the claim. In view of it, this misc. appeal is allowed. The order dated 1.9.2006 rejecting the application preferred by the claimant under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is quashed. The applications referred above are allowed and the claim of the appellant bearing No.134/99 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh stand restored. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.