CR No.660 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.660 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.2.2009 Pankaj ......Petitioner Versus Ajay Kumar and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.S. Bairagi, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.9.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby his application for setting aside ex parte order dated 9.11.2005 has been rejected and has also prayed for quashing order dated 9.11.2005 whereby he was proceeded against ex parte. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner suffered serious injuries on 1.7.1999 in a motor vehicular accident. The petitioner filed a claim petition on 21.8.2001 through Sh.Pardeep Yadav, Advocate at Gurgaon. The aforesaid claim petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 9.11.2005. The petitioner filed a fresh petition on 9.1.2006 through Sh. Vijay Kumar Yadav, Advocate, which was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide order dated 27.5.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the order dated 9.11.2005 whereby his first claim application was dismissed in default. Along with the said application, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. Vide impugned order CR No.660 of 2009 2 dated 29.9.2007, the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order would show that as per his own stand, the petitioner came to know about the order dated 9.11.2005 in the month of January, 2006 but instead of filing an application for setting aside the aforesaid order, he preferred second claim application on the same cause of action which was also dismissed on 27.5.2006 whereas the present application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was filed on 11.8.2006. The explanation given by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the application is without any justifiable cause. There is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Not only this, it is also noticed in the impugned order that in the second claim application filed by the petitioner on 7.1.2006, the petitioner specifically averred that the earlier petition bearing No.111 dated 17.9.2001 was never filed by him and the same was filed by some other person in his name. He had further gone to the extent of stating that he never singed the said claim petition or the Vakalatnama whereas in the application for restoration he has stated that the same was dismissed in default on account of mistake of his counsel. Thus, the petitioner had taken a false stand and therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, no fault can be found with the order 29.9.2007 passed by the MACT, Gurgaon. Dismissed. February 5, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE