B.S.VERMA,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, on delay condonation application and perused the record.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;