[2025:RJ-JP:20192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5018/2009 Kamlesh S/o Mohan Lal Verma, R/o 2/181, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Prem Wati W/o Sh. Jagniram, By Caste Jatav, R/o Village Kothen Khurd, P.s. Nadbai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur 2. Jagniram S/o Ramoli, By Caste Jatav, R/o Village Kothen Khurd, P.s. Nadbai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.C. Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/05/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.09.2009 passed by the Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner, District Bharatpur, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been rejected. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the notice of summons was never served upon the appellant-Kamlesh S/o Mohan Lal Verma, therefore, he submits that ex parte proceedings initiated against the appellant vide order dated 27.08.2008 and consequent thereto ex parte award dated 11.09.2008 are per se illegal. Despite service upon respondent, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. [2025:RJ-JP:20192] (2 of 3) [CMA-5018/2009] 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. From perusal of the record, it reveals that notice of the claim petition was never served upon the appellant and as per the record of the case, registered notice of the appellant was allegedly received by one Pushpa. Further there is no evidence that the person who received the registered notice i.e. Pushpa is any way related to the appellant. From the record of the case it reveals that service of summons was not in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 5 Rule 15 CPC as the person who has received the summon is not an adult member of the appellant's family, thus, it is proved that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the case was called on for hearing. Further there is on oath statement of the appellant is available on file that notice of the claim petition was never served and there is no rebuttal by the respondent. Thus, learned Court below erred in proceeding ex parte against the appellant and also erred in passing ex parte award on 11.09.2008. 5. It is a trite law that no party should be left unheard. In the present case from the record, it reveals that notice of the claim petition was never served upon the appellant and only on account of fact that notice was received by one Pushpa, service of the appellant was treated to be complete. 6. From the order-sheet dated 27.08.2008 and from the Registry receipts regarding service of the appellant- Kamlesh S/o Mohan Lal Verma, it is reflected that notice has been received by one Pushpa to whom appellant has contended that she is a stranger and no where related to the appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:20192] (3 of 3) [CMA-5018/2009] 7. Since learned Court below wrongly proceeded ex parte against the appellant without effecting proper service, therefore, in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is deserves to be accepted and the appellant should be accorded and granted opportunity to contest the case. 8. Accordingly the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is allowed. 9. The impugned order dated 01.09.2009 as well as ex parte award dated 11.09.2008 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner, District Bharatpur to provide opportunity of hearing to the appellant and re-decide the case in accordance with law. 10. That it is also made clear since this Court has set aside the impugned award dated 11.09.2008, therefore, the amount of Rs.2,26,380/- deposited by the appellant in compliance of the direction passed by this Court is ordered to be refunded back to the appellant. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed as no order as to costs. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI -151s