Appeal filed by Housing Board, respondent herein, was dismissed for non-prosecution by the State Commission on 21.10.2008 as counsel for the respondent had not appeared consecutively on six dates of hearing.  On the date of dismissal of the appeal, counsel for the petitioner/complainant was present.  Housing Board filed an application for restoration which was allowed on 02.2.2009 without issuing notice to counsel for the petitioner/complainant who was present at the time of dismissal of the

-2-

appeal.  Since counsel for the petitioner/complainant was present on the date when the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, it was incumbent on State Commission to issue notice to the petitioner before passing order of restoration of the appeal. 

Limited notice was issued to the respondent as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case be remitted back to the State Commission to pass fresh order on the application for restoration after hearing counsel for the petitioner. 

          As per practice adopted by this Commission, in the case where counsel for the opposite party was present at the time of dismissal of the case, then the same can be restored only after issuing notice to the counsel for the opposite party.  Since the same had not been done in the present case, the impugned order dated 02.2.2009 and 13.2.2009 are set aside. 

          State Commission is directed to decide the restoration application afresh after hearing counsel for the petitioner. 

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 09.12.2009.  In case, the State Commission

-3-

decides to recall its order dismissing the appeal for non prosecution and restores the same, then we would request the State Commission to decide the appeal, which is of the year 2002, expeditiously and preferably, within a period of 3 months from the date of first appearance.