JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Gram Panchayat of Village Risalwa submits that the petitioner was arrayed at Opposite Party No. 2 before the District Forum. It was never served in this case. 2. We have seen the record of the State Commission, which clearly goes to show that opposite party No. 2 was never served and one Shri Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents. Vakalatnama does not appear on the record. His memo of appearance appears on the record. The said memo is vague and evasive. He merely mentioned that he was appearing on behalf of Bhatia Electrical. The name of Grame Panchayat of Village Risalwa is conspicuously missing. It is, therefore, clear that opposite party No. 2 was not served before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the order in absence of opposite party No. 2. This is well known legal maxim, “No man should be condemned unheard.” Again whatever disagreement there be as to scope of the phrase, “due process of law” there can be no doubt ‘due to it’ embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trail with opportunity to be -3- heard. [Oliver Wendell Holmes – Frank vs. Magnum 237/u.s./309, 343 1915] 3. Under these circumstances, we condone the delay of 113 days, set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission for its decision afresh. ICICI Bank is absent despite service. Therefore, it is proceeded against ex parte. The State Commission will send a notice to ICICI Bank as well. The case be decided on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 31.10.2013. The State Commission is requested to expedite this case as expeditiously as possible. In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of. | 
