PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. Vakalatnama filed by the counsel for the respondent. Same is taken on record. This case was dismissed in default. Litigation charges paid. The impugned order runs as follows:- “ORDER NO. 7 DATED 21.11.2013 Appellant is absent and unrepresented. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent is present. There is no compliance of earlier orders by the Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for default.” 2. The District Forum decided this case on 18.12.2012. Thereafter, the First Appeal was preferred before the State Commission by April 2013. On 08.05.2013, notice was issued to the respondent for 08.07.2013. On 08.07.2013, the case was fixed for delay condonation as well as for stay for 07.08.2013. On 07.08.2013, delay of 101 days was condoned by the First Appellate authority subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- and the case was adjourned to 26.08.2013. On 26.08.2013, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Cost was also not paid. Case was adjourned to 23.09.2013. On 23.09.2013, the appellant/petitioner was absent. Advocate for the respondent was present. The case was dismissed in default. Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Sarbani Datta has filed an affidavit. The delay has been explained in paras 2,3 & 4 of the affidavit, which runs as follows:- “2. I say that on 26.08.2013, on my way to attend the above mentioned appeal, my car went out of order and therefore, when the matter was called for hearing it went unattended on behalf of the petitioner. 3. I say that thereafter inadvertently by mistake, I failed to post the next date i.e. 23.09.2013 in my diary as a result the said appeal went unattended on 23.09.2013, 04.11.2013 and thereafter on 21.11.2013, when the said appeal was dismissed in default. 4. I say that it is only on 25.11.2013, when the petitioner company enquired about the matter I came to know about it and realized my mistake and enquired about the matter upon which it was revealed that the said appeal was dismissed in default on 21.11.2013. Thereafter, I applied for the certified copy of the orders.” 3. It clearly shows that the Advocate Ms. Sarbani Datta is negligent. When she could not attend the court on 26.08.2013, she should have got her presence marked or moved an application for her presence on 26.08.2013. Her presence even if she appeared late finds no mention in the record. She is so negligent that she could not post the next date i.e. 23.09.2013 in her diary. She could not appear before the State Commission for three dates and the explanation given by her is fragile. Being gross negligent, she has guts to move such like affidavit before this Commission. Nothing will debar OP to file the complaint against her before the Bar Council of India. However, for the benefit of the litigant/opposite party and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-, which will be paid to the complainant by his name through demand draft directly. 4. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 11.04.2014. The State Commission will hear the case on merits after satisfying that the costs stand paid to complainant and decide it expeditiously but not more than three months from 11.04.2014 onwards. 5. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. | 
