This revision petition is directed against the order of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, “State Commission”) dated 22.12.2011 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.1099 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner/opposite party due to non-prosecution.

Ms.Meenakshi Midha, learned counsel for petitioner has contended that absence of the petitioner on the relevant date was unintentional. Actually in the cause list circulated for said date, subject matter was not shown. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner took it easy and appeared late before the State Commission. By the time counsel for appellant appeared, the matter was dismissed in default. In support of this contention, she has drawn our attention to the impugned order wherein, it is mentioned that after the dismissal of the appeal, counsel for appellant appeared and moved an application for restoration, which was rejected on the ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to restore it.

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has fairly stated that respondent no.1 has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and appeal is restored.  She however, submits that in order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the matter, directions be issued to the State Commission for disposing of the appeal in a time bound manner.

In view of the above, we set aside the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal in default and remand the matter back to the State Commission with the directions to dispose of the appeal, preferably within six month from the date of receipt of this order.

Present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.10.2014.