JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.Perused the impugned order dated 11.5.1989 by which the Civil Judge, lodhpur dismissed the petition of the appellant, which was filed under sections 75, 76 77 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948'). 2. The petition of the appellant was dismissed by the Court below on petition of the respondents, which was filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant submitted a petition before the same Court on 28.11.1983. The said petition was dismissed for ion-prosecution on 12.2.1986. The appellant submitted present petition 'rider the same provisions of law before the same Court on 15.9.1986. The Court below found that the petition filed by the appellant is barred by the time as said petition could have been filed within a period of three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Court below committed serious illegality in dismissing the petition of the s appellant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. It is also submitted that the Order 7, Rule 11 CPC could not have been applied in a matter under the provisions of the Act of 1948. It is also submitted that in the same way, neither Order 9, Rule 8 and nor Order 9, Rule 9 was applicable, therefore, there is no bar under the law for filing the second petition in case where first petition dismissed in default. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case. Undisputedly, the plaintiff in his own petition under sections 75, 76 & 77 of the Act of 1948, which was filed on 20 9.1986 admitted that the appellant itself submitted the petition on 28.11.1983 and further admitted that the said petition was dismissed in default and, therefore, the appellant is submitted fresh petition. In view of the above itself, it is clear that whatever cause of action accrued to the appellant in the year 1981 and, therefore, the cause of action accrued to the appellant in the year 1981 itself. In view of the above itself, it is clear that whatever cause of action accrued to the appellant in the year 1981 and, therefore, the cause of action accrued to the appellant in the year 1981 itself. Without going into the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant about the the applicability of the provisions of 0.9 R.B. Order 9, Rule 9 and Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, it is clear that the claim petition, which was filed by the appellant subsequently was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years and, therefore, the Court below was right in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant as barred by time. 6. I do not find any force in this appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******