Judgment 1. The above revision is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Authority in an application filed to set aside the ex parte award, by putting the petitioner on terms of making payment of Rs.5,000. The correctness of the said order is assailed in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court erred miserably in awarding payment of a sum of Rs.5,000 by the petitioner to the respondent in order to give the indulgence of getting the ex parte order set aside. If the application filed under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act by the workman is dismissed for default, in all such cases, a sum of Rs.100 or 150 will be awarded to restore the application. But, so far as the case of the petitioner herein is concerned, an amount of Rs.5,000 has been awarded as cost which is not at all sustainable. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent very vehemently contended that this is not a fit case to entertain the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised only when the Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. In those circumstances only, in on order to keep the Trial Court in its bound, the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution would be invoked. So far as the present case is concerned, the Trial Court after taking into consideration of the earlier conduct of the petitioner, having got the benefit of setting aside the ex parte order without any term, on earlier occasion the petitioner again left the matter to go for ex parte order and again wanted to get the ex parte order to be set aside. Taking into account the conduct of the party. The Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000 as costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the respondent has lost three fingers in the accident. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both side and perused the materials available on records. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the respondent has lost three fingers in the accident. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both side and perused the materials available on records. 5. Having regard to the fact that the respondent has sustained injuries and lost three fingers in the accident which took place in the year 1998 and having waited for more than one year to get the compensation which she is legally entitled to and having failed to get such benefits, in the year 1999 approached the Workmen Compensation Authority (Commissioner) for compensation. That case has not been disposed of because of the attitude of the petitioner in not filing even a counter in that application. Cost are within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court (vide 2000 (4) S.C.C. 266 ) 6. Hence, having regard to the conduct of the party, I am of the view that there is no scope to interfere with the order of the Trial Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.14515/2002 is dismissed.