IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.102 of 2007 DEEP KUMAR MANTU @ DILIP KUMAR MANTU Versus SUJATA DEVI & ORS ----------- 04. 14.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed challenging order dated 14.10.2006 by which Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Munger Division, Begusarai is said to have rejected the petition dated 21.09.2006 filed by the petitioner under Section 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rule, 1924 read with Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order dated 25.08.2006 (annexure-2). The said order was passed ex parte against the petitioner as in spite of notice he did not appear. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition dated 21.09.2006 under the provision of Section 41 of the Wrokmen’s Compensation Rule, 1924 read with Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of the Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order dated 25.08.2006 claiming that no notice was ever served upon him. It transpires that the said miscellaneous case continued in which notices were issued and by order dated 14.10.2006 the court below held that there was no occasion for any Commissioner in the proceeding. Thereafter the said case continued which is apparent from orders dated 25.11.2006, 30.12.2006 of the certified copy of the order sheet. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any merit in the civil revision which is accordingly dismissed. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)