Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. A claim petition was filed by the petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur. The said claim petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 09th January, 2001 for non-appearance of counsel for the complainant. Thereafter, an application for restoration was filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. alongwith an affidavit of Shri Parbat Singh, Advocate, in which, reasons for non-appearance were given by counsel of the petitioner Shri Parbat Singh. It was also brought to the notice of the Court in the application that another lawyer Shri Amar Krishan Vyas surrendered his registration, therefore, the date on which the claim petition was dismissed in default, he was not lawyer. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that dismissal of petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is illegal because sufficient reasons were brought to the notice of the Court, but those reasons have not been considered properly and straightaway the application for restoration of the claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. After perusing the order impugned dated 12th January, 2005 as well as the affidavit filed by Shri Parbat Singh, Advocate, I am of the opinion that the order passed by M.A.C.T., Jodhpur is not justified, because claim petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that none of the counsel was present in the Court on the date of dismissal of the claim in default on 09th January, 2001. 5. In this view of the matter, the order dated 9.1.2001 and the order dated 12th January, 2005 are hereby set aside and M.A.C.T., Jodhpur is directed to restore the claim and decide the same on merit. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.