Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that she has been authorized to argue the matter.

          Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage.

          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum and submitted that complainant executed an agreement-cum-pledge-cum-guarantee in favour of opposite party as loan against shares.  Opposite party issued notice of sale of shares due to short fall and complainant vide letter dated 22.2.2001 sent under UPC, authorized opposite party to sell the shares immediately but opposite party sold shares later on, which caused huge loss and alleged deficiency in service.  Complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.  Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that letter dated 22.2.2001 never reached to opposite party. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed opposite party  to pay 6,55,321 alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.  Opposite party filed appeal and Learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal and order of the District Forum was set aside against which this revision petition has been filed.

          Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

          Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Learned State Commission heard the arguments on 26.2.2013 and matter was kept reserved for orders and both the parties were directed to file written submissions within three days and petitioner submitted written submissions on 1.3.2013 but Learned State Commission decided the appeal on 26.2.2013 without considering his written submission.  Hence, revision petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to State Commission.  On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that as per practice of State Commission, date of pronouncement of judgment is written the same day on which arguments are heard.  In such circumstances, matter need not be remanded  back.

 Perusal of record clearly reveals that on 26.2.2013, Learned State Commission heard the arguments and appeal was kept reserved for orders and both the parties were directed to file written submissions within three days.  Admittedly, impugned order was passed on 26.2.2013, the date on which arguments were heard and written submissions submitted by the petitioner were not considered by the Learned State Commission.  In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that as per practice of State Commission, date of decision is mentioned the same day on which the arguments are heard instead of the date on which the judgment is announced.    Apparently, written submissions were not considered by the State Commission and the State Commission ought to have considered the written submissions filed by the parties and only after that judgment   should have been pronounced.  As written submissions have not been considered and UPC receipt has also not been considered though it was filed before the District Forum as well as before the State Commission, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter for deciding it afresh after considering the written submission and perusing UPC receipt. 

          Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the Learned State Commission in FA No. 71 of 2008- HDFC Bank Ltd.  Vs. Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, is set aside and matter is remanded back to Learned State Commission to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard, to the parties and after considering written submissions and UPC receipt filed before the District Forum.

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission  on 13.8.2014.