No one appears for the petitioner/opposite party.  Even then, we have perused the impugned order dated 21^st of April, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short the State Commission) in Miscellaneous Application No. 543 of 2009 seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 1452 of 2008, which was dimissed/decided by the State Commission vide order dated 6^th of March, 2009 in absence of the petitioner/opposite party or its counsel because they had failed to appear and pursue the appeal.  Thereafter, the restoration application was moved by the counsel for the petitioner/opposite party before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned order after recording the entire background and conduct of the petitioner/opposite party from the stage of the proceedings before the District Forum that despite opportunities granted to the petitioner/opposite party no written version to the complaint was filed.  The State Commission has noted the conduct of the petitioner/opposite party and its counsel on various dates of hearing.  Not only that, the State Commission has also noted  the entire  facts and  circumstances  and considered the merits and  dismissed  the application  and the  appeal, holding  that the order  passed by the District Forum was eminently justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.         Even before this Commission the present revision petition has been filed after undue delay of 58 days.  That would show that the petitioner/appellant/opposite party has not been vigilant at any point of time in the proceedings before the District Forum, State Commission, and lastly before this Commission.  Such a petitioner thus does not deserve any indulgence at least in the revision proceedings.  We are satisfied that the orders passed by the fora below are eminently justified.

3.         The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.