IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application NO. 8784/2010 in A.O. No. 368/2010 The Farm Superintendent Uttarakhand Sainik Punarvas Sansthan Pattharchatta Post Office Haldi District Udham Singh Nagar …. Appellant. Versus Smt. Gyanwati W/o Late Chhedu … Respondent. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, on delay condonation application and perused the record. Perusal of record shows that the respondent filed claim petition before Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The Court below granted several opportunities to the appellant but he did not appear , therefore, his right to produce evidence was closed vide order dated 27.4.2007 and the claim petition was decided exparte vide order dated 31.12.2007. The appellant also preferred review application for reviewing the order dated 31.12.2007 and the same was dismissed by the court below on 24.7.2010. The delay condonation application has been filed solely on the ground that the appellant could not appear in the court below due to the fault on the part of the counsel and he came to know about the case while the recovery proceeding was initiated against the appellant, but there is no mention of the date when the recovery proceeding was initiated. It is admitted case of the appellant that the impugned order was an exparte order. The remedy available with the appellant was either to file appeal or to move application before the trial court to set aside the exparte order. I have perused the order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. Before Compensation Commissioner the appellant was present and sought time for cross examination of the witness of the claimant. The trial court fixed 30-5-2006 for cross-examination of 2 the witness but he did not appear. Further despite the dates given by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner for evidence, on 14-7-2006, 22-09-2006, 26-10-2006, 03-11-2006, 21-11-2006, 05-12- 2006, 05-01-2007, 02-02-2007, 16-03-2007, 23-03-2007 and 20-04- 2007, no evidence was adduced by the appellant and the right of evidence of the appellant was closed by the learned Compensation Commissioner and after hearing the claimant the claim was allowed. I have also perused the contents of delay condonation application. The only reason shown by appellant in it is that the appellant could not appear before the trial court due to the fault of the counsel. However, no explanation has been given by the appellant as to how he was prevented to come to court on the above dates fixed by workmen compensation commissioner. The delay in filing the present appeal is 949 days. I do not find any reason to condone the delay. The delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently the appeal also stands dismissed. Dated: 14-02-2011 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB