JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.3.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Arbitration Case No.1/2012 (Mushi Khan v. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd.), whereby the learned court below in exparte order under section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 has allowed the application of the borrower - respondent Mushi Khan and directed the present appellant M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. to give back the financed truck No.RJ-27/1G/0851, which was repossessed by the Finance Company from the present respondent and was lying in the custody of the Police Station Dabok. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant Finance Company submitted that the said order is exparte and therefore, deserves to be set aside, since the Manager of the Finance Company who was out of station could not attend the said proceedings before the court below. 3. The learned Court below in the impugned order dated 17.3.2012 has clearly observed that the non-applicant - present appellant Finance company has been served with the summons of the Court and despite repeated calling of the case, no body is present on behalf of the non-applicant. In the circumstances of the case, where the applicant approached the Court below under section 9 of the Arbitration Act, with the stipulation that the truck in question was repossessed by them without giving any account details and nature of defaults made by the respondent borrower, the Court below appears to be justified in passing the impugned order directing the possession of the truck to be given to the respondent - borrower. 4. The present appellant Finance Company is free to refer the matter to the Arbitrator in accordance with the Finance agreement between the two parties and against the interim order under Section 9 of the Act, even though exparte, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the same as the reasons assigned for non-appearance in the Court, despite service of summons, namely, Manager of the appellant - Company being out of station is not found to be specific and cogent reason for absence. The appellant company is limited company and any duly authorised officer could have appeared before the court below. In absence of its appearance, the exparte order was bound to be suffered by the present appellant. The appellant company is limited company and any duly authorised officer could have appeared before the court below. In absence of its appearance, the exparte order was bound to be suffered by the present appellant. The impugned order seems to be justified in the circumstances and call for no interference in the present appeal. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the court below as well as the opposite party forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******