JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the appellant submitted an application stating therein that service of respondent No. 1 may be dispensed with as despite several efforts, the notice have not been served upon the respondent No. 1. It is also submitted that respondent No. 1 did not appear before the Tribunal to contest the claim of the appellant and did not filed his address for service. 5 Therefore, service of respondent No. 1 can be dispensed with under sub-clause (4) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Or. 41 CPC and relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of M/s. Jamna Bai & Ors. v. Chhote Singh, reported in 2004(1) ACC 190 (Full Bench). 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent No. 1 is owner of the vehicle and his service may not be dispensed with as he has not been served with even show cause notice of the appeal before admission and the service of notice of the appeal cannot be said to be a proceeding in any incidental matter of the appeal. It appears that the Full Bench of the 1 Madhya Pradesh High Court after considering objections and reasons for amendment of sub-rule (4) of Or. 41 CPC held that in order to avoid delay in disposal of the appeal, the said provision was inserted in the Civil Procedure Code. 3. In the facts of this case, it is clear that when the respondent No. 1 a did not appear before the Tribunal and did not choose to contest the claim. which could have been allowed upto the extent of the total claim of the claimants. Therefore, no prejudice can be caused to the respondent, if service of respondent No. 1 is dispensed with rather in the facts of this case, it will serve the purpose of avoiding delay in disposal of the appeal. 25 Therefore, service of respondent No. 1 is dispensed with as the appeal is pending since last seven years for service of respondent No. 1 and still. respondent No. 1 has not been served.Service of Notice on Respondent Dispensed With. *******