HIGMCOURT OFGHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR Sfngte Bench: Hon'bleShri Dilip RaosahebiOeshmukn, J. W.P. (L) No. 7235 of2007 [. Petitianer (Non-applicant No.3) Respondents (ApDlieahO Sarpaeh, Gram Panchayat Joratan^ Village Joratari, Tehsil ahd Distt. Rajnandgaon (GG) through^ its Sarpanch Smt. Ante Bai Bandlie, W/o RamSwardop Bandhe, aged about 28 yrars, R/o Viltage Joratarai, Tahsil and E)istrictRaqjnandgaon (GG) Versus 1, L-abpur Court, Rajnandgaon, Ading as Comniissioher, under Woriunen CompensationAct,Rajnandgaoh{CG) 2. ShaKun Bai,WaPremsingh Sahu, aged abdut 36 years, R/o VillEge ,Joratarai, PS.Laltogh.DistrlctRajnandgaore^iS) fNon-aDDUcantNo.11 3. TheGoliector DistrictRajnandflaon(CG) (Non-abplicant N6.21 4. TheChief Executive Officer Ziia Panchayat Rajnangaon (CG)^ (Non-aDDlicantNo.4} 5. fresiderit, Sinha Samaj, thrpugh^ Aryori, S/&'T't}au, aged ^Bout 42 years, Village Joratan, Poist-Bon, ? f'.s. Lalbagh, DistTiet Rajnandgaon (BG) 6. SantoshShrivasteva, ' Ste Vishwajeet Shrivastava, ; ;s^ Ex-Sarpanch,j/oNear01clKnslisal('li?ug Press, Braftamanfara, 3E)isWct Rajnandgaon (CG) , ft WritDetition underArticle 227ofthe Constitutionoflrtdia ^Present: ShriAnupMazymdaT,eoui^|f6rthepetitioRe^ ShriAkhilAgravral.Pl.forftieState. ORAl.ORDER—' •:/ • ' "- ' ; ..:' (Passed on 14.12.2007) This petition is being disposed of finally at the stege of admissionwithoutnoticetotherespondents. :'-.(2) •,:Heard...r;'-. : •;::::... .':'., :: ;. ':.; .'•• • (3) The petitioner is aggrieyecl toy ah &rel6r dated 5.10.2807; passed by the Commissioner for .Workmen's Gpmpensation^^^ Rajnandgaon (CG) (herejnafter referretf to as 'CommissiOner'),! :fe l^ !-la~ ^^SS^S^^^sSSS;!^^^ <; whereby application for setting aside eX-paite order dated 27.6.2006 Wassummanlyrejected. , ^ (4) Brief facts are that the petitionerinon-applicantMo^ in the application for eompensation filed t^ the respondent No.2 remafned absent beforethe Commjssiorier. As a result, an ex-parte order awarding compensatJQnwithinterestandpenaltywaspassedagainst the Detitioner on 27.6.2006. The oetitioner moyed an applicatfon under Order-8 Rule-13 of flie Code of G.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Gode) read with S^ction 151 of the Code fbr setUng aside the ex parteorderdated 27.6.2006 along with an application urider Section 5 of tMe Limitation Act. The Oommissioner passed fhe following order- '"^. "5/10/or 1 t^PWT srf^O \i4R^ 1 STO W^T g?TfeT 'T5I Sf^S ^KW % •SE^tf ^TT Nw X ^T yi^'<ul 'cpT Fi<|tt?<<u! "I]OT '? •q? I^T 'H^nT tl 3R?: .traU^^rt^.Pt<^^^ f^W ^T%;:<S^^3t^^"1"^^'^'^^::: .^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ': ; . - Coramissioner For WOrkmen's Compensation Rajnandgaon (CGy (5) Leamecf counsel for the petitioner uiged that the said Order whereby the application under Order-9 Rule-13 of the Code was summarilyrejectedisbadin|awbecauseitdoeshotshowapplicafion of mind or any good reason for dismissal 6f the application under Order-9 Rule-13 of the Gode or the application under Seetion 5 of the LimitationAct. % J-1» (6) Having cOnsidered the submission of the learned counsel of thepetitiorier,1ftispetitiondeservestobeatkwedatthjsstage.Th dismissat of the application under Order-9 Riule-13 of the Code merely6n egroundfhatthecasev^decidedpn^^r^ unwarranted and showsconaplete lackof appticatipn oftminaio^ i7~l-F ^ Priya merit of the application under Order-9 Rule-13 of C.P.C or the application under Section 5of the Limitation Act. (7) In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner is set aside. ThematterisremittedtotheCommissionerwithadirectionto consider the application under Order-9 Rule-13 6f the Code or the appljcation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on merit and to pass a speaking orderon the said applicatiOns. C.e, asper rules. f— Sd-/ ^-^r .hiaukb ^