Heard the counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner has approached the High Court of Bombay against the order of the State Commission and the said Writ Petition was dismissed, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. 2. Order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 1019/2008 is in question in these proceedings filed by the Petitioner Bank under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order of the District Forum which was pending for quite a long time. The order is rather short and reads as under:- or appellant IDBI Bank ltd. Adv. Smt. Meera Shelke had appeared on 24.06.2009. Thereafter matter was adjourned to 10.09.2009, 24.08.2009, 07.12.2010, 08.03.2011, 15.06.2011, 18.08.2011 and 21.10.2011 neither appellant nor their counsel remained present. None appeared for respondent. It seems that appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter. Appeal is dismissed in default. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the said order on the strength of an order dated 24.06.2009 which came to be passed by the State Commission during the pendency of the appeal, which reads as under:- eard Advocate Hira Shelke for appellant and Advocate B.R. Sable for Respondent. Appeal be admitted. Interim stay granted is made absolute till disposal of appeal. Application filed by the respondent for vacating the stay is dismissed. Kept in sine-die. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the proceedings in the appeal having been adjourned sine-die, the appeal was revived on the application made by the respondent without any notice to the appellant / petitioner herein. No notice was issued and, therefore, the petitioner presumed that the proceedings in the appeal continued to be adjourned sine-die and, therefore, appellant could not present. Even the respondent has not appeared on any of those dates. This is so apparent from the order-sheets of the State Commission filed on record. 5. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the dismissal of the appeal in the above circumstances was not proper and it has resulted into miscarriage of justice because the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution even without notice and the appeal has not been heard on merits. Therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the dismissal of the appeal and to restore the appeal on the Board of the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits and to allow the revision petition. We order accordingly. The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 05.11.2012 for further directions. Needless to mention that we have not bestowed any consideration to the merits of the appeal and the State Commission will be free to decide the appeal in accordance with law.