D. P. BUCH, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 5 ) IT is not much in dispute that the petitioner had obtained an award of compensation on 30-6-1988 in MACP no. 157/83. The first respondent did not appear before the Tribunal and. therefore, the matter had proceeded ex parte against him. It is also not much in dispute that the first respondent preferred Claim Misc. Application No. 13/93 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte award. The Tribunal allowed the application and passed the aforesaid order which is impugned in this revision application. It is not much in dispute that the first respondent had made an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the code. Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC clearly provides that in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to a Court by which the decree was passed for an order for setting it aside, and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit. and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. ( 6 ) THIS means that even when the court is satisfied that the defendant was prevented from appearing in the court, then in exercise of the powers under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, the Court would set aside the decree and then would appoint a day tor proceeding with the suit. In the present case, we find that the learned Tribunal, while exercising the said power set aside an ex parte award in favour of the petitioner and against the first respondent. ( 7 ) AT the same time, the learned Tribunal also proceeded to pass an order for exonerating the first respondent. This is what not contemplated in Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. ( 7 ) AT the same time, the learned Tribunal also proceeded to pass an order for exonerating the first respondent. This is what not contemplated in Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. Therefore, it is clear that the portion of the order impugned in this revision exonerating the first respondent outright from the liability of the award in question is ex-facie illegal. The learned tribunal was required to fix a day for proceeding ahead with the main Claim petition which has not been done in the present matter. Therefore, the said order is passed by the learned Tribunal without having a jurisdiction to do so. The order is, therefore, ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. When the order of the learned tribunal is found to be illegal and without jurisdiction, it would be necessary for this court to interfere with the said order by exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the said Code. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the proper course would be to set aside the order impugned in this revision and then to direct the petitioner and respondent no. l to proceed ahead with respect to MACP No. 157 of 1983. ( 9 ) XXX xxx xxx rule made absolute. .