Mr.Piyush Agarwal, Advocate, whose vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner is on record, heard for some time on admissibility of the Revision Petition. The petitioner has challenged order of 29th April 2014 passed by the State Commission, Delhi directing filing of ex parte evidence, which reads as under : “OP served through registered post. Acknowledge receipt is on record. OP is absent despite service, therefore, proceed ex parte. Put up on 18.11.2014 for filing ex parte evidence.” Proceedings before the passing of the impugned order show that, on 24.1.2014, the State Commission had directed issuance of notice to the respondent/petitioner for 10.3.2014. The State Commission had also directed the OP not to alienate, transfer or dispose of or to create any third party interest with regard to the subject matter of the complaint, i.e., Flat No.306, A-10 Tower Eco Village-2, GH-01 Sector 16B, Greater Noida, U.P. The notice in this behalf was received by the petitioner. In para-3 of the Revision Petition, it is stated that “one envelope containing three pages consisting of notice and copy of interim order dated 24.1.2014” was received on 15.2.2014. Having received the notice on 15.2.2014, there would be no justification with the petitioner not to appear before the State Commission on 10.3.2014. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Revision Petition. He is permitted to do so. The Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. | 
