1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.195/2008 Ram Singh v. Vinodi Bai & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 8th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. B.K.Bhatnagar, for the appellant. .... By this appeal a challenge is given to the order dated 29.10.2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nimbahera, rejecting an application preferred under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the present appellant. The allegation of the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the notice issued was not at all served upon the appellant and, therefore, he was deprived to defend the claim made by the respondents. I have examined the order impugned, from perusal of that it reveals that as a matter of fact the appellant was adequately aware of the fact regarding claim proceedings initiated by the respondents. The claim was contested by real brother of the appellant who was also co-owner of the vehicle that met with accident and the Tribunal, after 2 considering all facts, found that the appellant intentionally avoided service. Proviso to Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure adequately safeguards such eventualities by providing that no court shall set aside a decree passed exparte merely on the ground there has been irregularity in service of summons if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and transfer and answer the plaintiff's claim. In the instant mater from facts it is amply proved that the appellant was aware of the proceedings initiated against him and, thus, I do not find any error by the Tribunal in rejecting the application preferred under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.