Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 1 finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 27.02.2013, matter was adjourned for 14.03.2013, but by inadvertence, learned counsel for the petitioner noted 14.05.2013. On intimation by some other counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner alongwith written statement reached to the State Commission, but by that time, the State Commission vide impugned order dated 14.03.2013 closed written statement of petitioner and directed complainant to file evidence. Petitioner filed review application, which was dismissed, vide order dated 08.07.2013 and petitioner, by this revision petition, has challenged both the orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 14.03.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner got written statement signed and notarized and reached to the State Commission some late and by that time, the State Commission had closed opportunity of filing written statement and in such circumstances, orders dated 14.03.2013 and 08.07.2013 be set aside and written statement may be taken on record. Respondent no. 1 submitted that petitioner should have seen website of the State Commission and should have corrected date on which he was to file written statement and hence, impugned order passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law and revision petition be dismissed. Petitioner has filed this revision petition alongwith application for condonation of delay of 61 days. Order of closing written statement was passed on 14.03.2013 and review petition was dismissed on 08.07.2013 and copy of review order was issued by the State Commission on 29.07.2013 and this revision petition has been filed on 12.08.2013. In such circumstances, as revision petition has been filed within 15 days from passing of review order, we condone delay in filing revision petition, challenging both the orders. Perusal of record clearly reveals that learned counsel for the petitioner noted down next date as 14.05.2013 instead of 14.03.2013, so did not reach to the State Commission in time. It, further, reveals that on information by other counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner reached to the State Commission alongwith written statement signed and notarized on the same date, but reached late, hence written statement was closed. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to allow the revision petition, subject to cost and allow the petitioner to file written statement. As order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition to that extent is dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 14.03.2013, passed by the State Commission in Complaint Case No. CC/11/330, Hemant S. Dehadray & Anr. vs. Vodafone India Ltd. is set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost and petitioner is allowed to file written statement on the next date and the State Commission, after taking written statement on record, shall proceed in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 12.02.2014.