Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard. 2. This civil revision has been filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 17 (C) of 2011 (Ram Kishor Vs. Satish Kumar) whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the application for condonation of delay filed along with application for recall of order dated 11.3.2010 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 3. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that the revisionist-respondent came to know about the ex-parte order passed in Claim Petition No. 113 of 2009 only on the receipt of notice in execution case filed for the purpose of executing the judgment and award dated 11.3.2010. It is submitted that immediately thereafter the revisionist had moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for recall, however, the learned Court below, in most arbitrary and illegal manner without properly considering the pleas raised and grounds taken in the said application, has rejected the said application. The revisionist has been denied opportunity to defend himself in the claim petition which has caused irreparable loss and injury to the revisionist. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for revisionist and gone through the record. 5. From bare reading of the order impugned, it is very much clear that the revisionist had the knowledge of the aforesaid claim petition on 18.9.2009. He had engaged one Sri K.K. Tiwari, Advocate to defend him in the said claim petition. Sri K.K. Tiwari had filed vakalatnama and application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, however, no written statement was filed on behalf of the revisionist and the revisionist did not contest the case before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal as such had decided the claim petition vide order dated 11.3.2010. 6. Learned counsel for revisionist tried to submit that the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed by forging the signature of revisionist and the revisionist has no knowledge of the said application. 7. Even in case, it is believed that the revisionist had no knowledge of the said application, it was expected from the revisionist that he should have been vigilant to find out the outcome of the said claim petition. The revisionist did not file any application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC immediately after the decision in the claim petition and kept waiting for the execution to proceed. The revisionist did not file any application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC immediately after the decision in the claim petition and kept waiting for the execution to proceed. It was only on the receipt of the notice in the execution case that he has chosen to prefer the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 8. The conduct of revisionist clearly indicates that the revisionist himself was responsible for not contesting the case on merit and allowed the claim petition to be decided ex-parte, as such, it cannot be said that the revisionist had no knowledge of the ex-parte order passed by the learned Tribunal and the application preferred under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was liable to be allowed. 9. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 10. The order impugned does not require any interference. 11. The civil revision being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage. _____________