Honble GODARA, J.–This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.11.95 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi, whereby application purporting to be filed under order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC has been dismissed. The prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the ex-parte judgment and award passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 7 who are legal heirs of Late Shri Dhanaram Vishnoi and against the petitioner as well as respondent No 8 who are owner and driver of truck No. P.B.X. 4225 respectively. (2). The claimant/respondents No. 1 to 7 filed a claim of Rs. 4,07,418.60/- against the owner and the driver of the vehicle alleging that driver of the vehicle drew the same rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of Dhannaram. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, Shri R.K. Ojha, the then advocate, after due service had put in appearance. While the ex- parte judgment and Award were passed, Shri Ojha, advocate, failed to appear before the MACT, Jodhpur and, consequently claim petition was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the non- claimants to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- holding them liable jointly and severally. Meanwhile, subsequently upon creation of Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge Phalodi, the same having been invested with powers of MACT, an execution application was filed before MACT, Phalodi wherefrom execution proceeding were started and during the execution proceedings, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and Award passed against the owner and driver, but vide order dated 4.4.87 the learned MACT Court dismissed the applica- tion and hence this revision petition. (3). As regard the facts, there is no dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that particulars of Insurance policy have been obtained in respect of said vehicle involved in the accident, as a result of which, Dhanna Ram met with an accident. The particulars which stand certified by the Branch Manager of National Insurance Company, Abohar Branch, reveal that vehicle so involved in the accident was duly insured between 31.12.85 to 30.12.86, while the present accident took place on 11.10.1986 and accordingly the period of accident is also covered by the period of insurance of vehicle. In such circumstances, his further submission is that though the vehicle was fully insured, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. In such circumstances, his further submission is that though the vehicle was fully insured, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- against the Award money which is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 7. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is ready, in case so ordered by this Court, to pay further sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 with the condition to get this amount adjusted against the final award, in case the liability of insurer is held to be unlimited. On this basis, since the vehicle involved in the accident also, appears to have been insured at the time of accident and besides a sum of Rs. 25,000/- stands paid against the award money and further sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been assured to be paid to the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 and, in these circumstances, it is just and proper that exparte order and award be set aside on the condition that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited by way of Account Payees Cheque in the name of Smt. Jeti Devi widow of late Dhanna Ram Vishnoi before MACT, Phalodi. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned order of learned court below is set aside and application filed under order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with 151 CPC is accepted and the claim petition is restored back to its original number. The petitio- ner shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- as ordered above. The claimants are at liberty to array Insurance Company concerned also as non- claimant. Thereafter, it is directed that learned Presiding Officer of MACT shall dispose of the claim petition as early as possible on merits. It is further clarified that petitioner who is also insured, in case full liability is not imposed on the Insurer, shall be entitled to adjustment of amount paid by him against the award money, as aforementioned.