JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on an application filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for setting aside the judgment and award dated 14.5.2010, passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No.535/2006. 2. The respondent No.1 Rajesh S/o Shri Shobha Lal Lohar filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, Udaipur in relation to some injuries received by him in an accident took place on 10.6.2004 involving jeep No.RJ 02 C 2834, owned by the respondent No.2 and driven by the appellant. Before the Tribunal, the appellant as well as the respondent No.2 and the Insurance Company contested the claim by filing their replies and evidence was also adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the claimant and the Insurance Company passed an award of Rs. 6,66,200/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9%, in favour of the claimant and ordered that the appellant as well as the owner of the jeep are liable to pay the said awarded amount. 3. After passing of the award dated 14.5.2010, the appellant moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the ex-parte award passed against him may kindly be set aside and he may be provided an opportunity of hearing. 4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties has observed that on behalf of the appellant, an Advocate had appeared and a reply to the claim petition was also filed on behalf of the appellant. 5. It is further observed that after completion of evidence of the claimant, the matter was fixed for recording evidence of opposite party and the evidence produced by the Insurance Company was recorded on 13.4.2010, but at that time no evidence was produced by the appellant or owner of the jeep and none was present on behalf of them, then the evidence of opposite party was closed and the matter was fixed for hearing on 14.5.2010. After observing this, the learned trial court has observed that the claim petition was not decided ex-parte against the appellant and the same was decided after taking into consideration claim petition, written statement, filed by the opposite parties, and the evidence produced. After observing this, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 3.2.2012. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was never provided any opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is liable to be allowed, but the learned Tribunal has illegally rejected the same. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.It is not in dispute that the claim petition preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1 was not decided ex-parte against the appellant. He was represented by his counsel before the Tribunal and filed reply to the claim petition. Despite giving opportunity by the Tribunal, no evidence was led on behalf of the appellant, who was the driver of the insured vehicle. 8. Looking to the above circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******