ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19-12-2012, which is impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. 2. The first respondent herein had filed a claim petition in WCA.CR. No. 12/2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mandya Sub-Division-1, Mandya. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at the first instance had dismissed the claim petition by the judgment dated 27-8-2011. The first respondent herein filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in Misc. No. 1/12 seeking that the judgment be set aside and the case be restored for consideration. The Commissioner by the order dated 19-12-2012 has allowed the application and restored the case so as to permit the first respondent herein to adduce the evidence afresh and also the Doctor's evidence. The petitioner herein who was the second respondent to the said proceedings has assailed the said order. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the Commissioner at the first instance has passed the judgment on merits and the claim petition had been dismissed, he could not have thereafter entertained miscellaneous petition for restoration of the proceedings since the first respondent if at all aggrieved could have only assailed the judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in an appeal. It is further contended that the order dated 19-12-2012 is justified and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Counsel for the first respondent however would seek to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by which the proceedings has been restored. 5. In the light of the contentions, I have perused at the outset, the judgment dated 27-8-2011 by which the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition. A perusal of the same would indicate that the issues had been formulated and the Commissioner having taken note of the evidence tendered by the first respondent as P.W. 1 has dismissed the claim petition. The further evidence of P.W. 1 or the evidence of the Doctor had not been completed. The fact that the proceedings was not concluded in all respects is also clear from the judgment since an observation has been made that the respondents also did not adduce any evidence and the applicant as well as the respondent have not presented any arguments. 6. The fact that the proceedings was not concluded in all respects is also clear from the judgment since an observation has been made that the respondents also did not adduce any evidence and the applicant as well as the respondent have not presented any arguments. 6. If the said observations are kept in view, though the Commissioner has answered issue 1 and dismissed the claim petition, the judgment essentially is an ex parte judgment since the learned Counsel for the parties did not take part in the further proceedings after the claimant had been examined as P.W. 1. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of CPC by the first respondent is taken into consideration, the averments therein would disclose that an explanation was being offered on behalf of the first respondent herein for not being present in the proceedings after the evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded on 28-9-2011. It is in that light, the first respondent had sought for an opportunity to put forth all contentions and seek consideration by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. If these aspects are kept in view, since essentially the judgment passed in the first instance is an ex parte judgment, the Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated 19-12-2012 in restoring the claim petition for consideration after providing opportunity to the parties. Hence the order dated 19-12-2012 does not call for interference. 7. Having said so, the concern put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Insurance Company should not be made liable for payment of interest for the default of the first respondent needs to be addressed. The default is on the part of the respondent. In this regard, it is clarified that on completion of the proceedings, if the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation arrives at the conclusion that the claim petition is to be allowed and any compensation should be granted to the first respondent, at that stage, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation shall keep in view the order sheet of the proceedings to take note of the default on the part of the first respondent and for such period of default on the part of the first respondent, appropriate orders shall be made when ultimately the issue relating to payment of interest is considered by the Commissioner in that regard. 8. 8. Since by the order dated 19-12-2012 the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has restored the proceedings on record, the Commissioner shall now transfer the matter to the Civil Court in terms of the present procedure laid down in that regard. The proceedings shall thereafter be concluded in accordance with law. 9. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.