Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that she will be filing her Vakalatnama today with the registry. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission passed impugned order without hearing petitioner, which is contrary to the principle of nature of justice and hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though State Commission ought to have issued notice to the respondent but as State Commission was convinced by the medical record, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with the law, hence revision petition be dismissed. Learned District Forum passed ex parte order against the opposite party/respondent and learned State Commission vide impugned order heard counsel for the appellant (Opposite party) and observed that at admission stage there is no need to hear the respondent (complainant) and passed this order. We are surprised to note that even without hearing other party (complainant) whether State Commission could have set aside ex parte order. It was obligatory on the part of the State Commission to decide the matter and set aside ex parte order only after hearing to the complainant. As impugned order was passed without hearing complainant, impugned order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 04-07-2013 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 620/2013 Country Club (India) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Harbhajan Singh is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard to counsel for the complainant-petitioner. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 18-11-2013.