ORDER 1. By this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 rule 1 read with section 151 of the CPC, appellants Dharmendra Singh and Mahesh have challenged the Award dated 4.9.2013 passed by the First Additional Member, MACT, Ratlam in Claim Case No.3/2013. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the application had been filed under Order 9 rule 13 of the CPC before the trial Court for setting aside the ex parte order passed by it. However, the same has been rejected and hence, the present appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case in the nutshell are that in the original claim case respondent Naggaji has filed a claim for compensation without issuing any legal notices by the registered A.D. or by giving any notices to the other side. The matter had been decided by ex parte and Award for Rs.33,000/- as compensation has been awarded to the claimant. 4. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that such an award was liable to be set aside since the notices were never received by the appellant Dharmendra Singh (PW1) because he was living separately from his father Mahesh Singh resident of 50/3 Sanvid Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore and notices were never served on the appellant No.2. Similarly appellant No.2 Mahesh Singh has remained absent and it could be said that the notices have not been effected to the appellant No.2. In this light, Counsel for the appellants prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Counsel further submitted that the appellants are willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Counsel placed reliance on G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and others [ (2000)3 SCC 54 ], stating that the apex Court had directed that; the expression, “was prevented by any sufficient cause” from appearing should be construed liberally and the Court had wide discretion for setting aside the ex parte orders if sufficient cause was shown under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC. The apex Court had levied cost of Rs.5000/- and remanded the matter holding that if the defendant was found negligent then the other side shall be paid costs of Rs.5,000/-. The apex Court had levied cost of Rs.5000/- and remanded the matter holding that if the defendant was found negligent then the other side shall be paid costs of Rs.5,000/-. Placing reliance on Anil v. Soimta Tar Product and others 2006(1) JLJ 119 counsel submitted that this Court had also directed to setting aside the ex parte decree to do complete justice between the parties and sufficient cause for non-appearance was enough to set aside the order. And the Court had held that even if appellant is found to be negligent, the other party can be compensated by paying costs. 5. Counsel submitted that in the present case also since there is no effective service on the appellant No.2 and the impugned order be set aside and costs as this Court may deem proper under the circumstances be levied. 6. On considering the above submissions and the fact that the respondents never appeared before the lower Court. The impugned order passed ex parte needs to be set aside since proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to the present appellants. On such an ex parte judgment would be against the principles of natural justice. Placing reliance on G.P. Shrivastava (supra), I find that sufficient causes is made out to the defendant and to do substantial justice between the parties the ex parte award is set aside subject to condition that the appellants shall deposit 50% of the awarded amount in the trial Court before contesting the case. However, in the interest of justice cost of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the claimants, which is to be paid by the present appellants within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is also further directed that 50% of the awarded amount that is deposited in the trial Court shall be subject to the final outcome of claims case and shall not be disbursed to the claimants till the final order is passed. 7. The trial Court is directed to restore the claims case to its original number and notices be issued to the claimants afresh. Let the entire exercises be completed within a period of one month from today. Needless to say that this Court is not making any observation on the merits of the case. 8. The present appeal is allowed to the extent herein above indicated. .......................