Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Parveen Industries vs Banawar Singh on 13 December, 1989
6. A look at the aforesaid provision demonstrates that provisions contained in Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in the proceedings before the Commissioner. Therefore, an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment could be filed before the Commissioner. The only question which requires my consideration is whether appeal lies to this Court under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C. against the order made by the Commissioner dismissing the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. As is evident from the perusal of Rule 41 of the Rules of 1924 the provisions contained in Order 43, Rule 1, CPC are not applicable. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature in enacting the aforesaid provision was to prevent a party to file miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, CPC. Therefore, in my considered opinion in view of Rule 41 of the Rules of 1924, appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, CPC is not competent. My view finds support from Praveen Industries and Ors. v. Shri Banawar Singh (supra), wherein the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court indicated thus:
Krishna Lime Works vs Presiding Officer/Workmen'S ... on 21 September, 1988
4. On the other hand, Mr. D.C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that no appeal is maintainable under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C. The only course which is open to the appellant is to file appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act). Reliance was placed on Praveen Industries and Ors. v. Sri Banawar Singh II (1990) ACC 180 (DB), Bashir Khan v. Ranger Social Vaniki and Ors. RLR 1994 (1) page 27, and Krishna Lime Works v. Presiding Officer 1988 (2) WLN 598.
Bashir Khan vs Ranger, Social Vaniki And Ors. on 15 July, 1994
7. Even the revision petition under Section 115, CPC is not maintainable against the order of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation as is held by the Division Bench of this Court in Bashir Khan v. Ranger Social Vaniki and Ors. (supra). It was indicated by the Division Bench that revision under Section 115, CPC is not maintainable against the order passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation as the Commissioner was not a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115, CPC.
1