Appellant has filed copies of earlier two order sheets. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 3. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed complaint as none appeared for the complainant on 20-12-2013. Perusal of earlier order sheets reveal that on 06-08-2013, proxy counsel for both the parties appeared and matter was adjourned to 18-11-2013 for filing rejoinder and evidence by the complainant. On 18-11-2013, counsel for the respondent appeared but none appeared for the complainant and matter was adjourned to 20th December, 2013, on which date complaint was dismissed as none appeared for the complainant. 4. It becomes clear that complainant was not present on 20th December, 2013 and on 18th November, 2013. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of miscommunication next date was noted as 20-01-2014 instead of 20-12-2013 and in such circumstances, complainant could not appear on 20th December, 2013. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, as none appeared on behalf of complainant on 18-11-2013, how complainant could note down wrong date. It is true that complainant was not present on 18-11-2013 but date can be noted down by other means also and on account of miscommunication complainant noted down wrong date as 20-01-2014 instead of 20-12-2013 and as complaint has been dismissed in default, I deem it appropriate to restore the complaint as it was at the stage of filing replica and evidence 5. Consequently, appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 20th December, 2013 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. 263/2010 – Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority is set aside, subject to depositing Rs.5,000/- as cost with Consumer Legal Account of the State Commission and complaint is restored at its original number. Complainant is given last opportunity to file rejoinder and evidence on the next date before State Commission. 6. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 10.11.2014. | 
