Heard counsel for the petitioner.

The complaint filed by the present petitioner was dismissed on 19.3.2009 as no one appeared for the complainant on that day. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the said order which was also dismissed by the District Forum by order dated 25.1.2010.  In the said order, the District Forum had disbelieved the submission of counsel for the complainant that he had, in fact, appeared at 1.30 p.m., inasmuch as the compliant had been dismissed in default at 2.30 p.m.  The District Forum, therefore, rejected the contention of the complainant on the ground that the statement made by counsel for the complainant, that he had appeared at 1.30 p.m. was totally false.  This order was challenged by the present petitioner before the State Commission.  Before the State Commission, it was contended by the counsel for the appellant that even assuming that the reason for absence furnished by the complainant was unpalatable, yet the complainant should be given an opportunity to argue on merits of the matter.  We are rather surprised at the submission made by counsel for the appellant before the State Commission.  If it is assumed that reason for absence was furnished by the complainant was unpalatable, the complainant could not be heard to say that in spite of having made false statement, he should be heard on merits.  The State Commission rightly did not accept the said contention and dismissed the appeal on this ground as also on delay in filing the restoration application.

In this set of facts, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference  in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.