1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. 2. The impugned order passed by the State Commission runs as follows: “Oral Order : Per Shri M. D. Shah, President Date 5.9.2014 -2- - As the learned Advocate for the petitioner was absent earlier on 21.8.2014, today’s adjournment was given in the interest of justice. Even today, though the call out was made, neither the appellant nor their learned Advocate is present. The said appeal is of 2009. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order is passed for dismissing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bench has changed, therefore he could not appear. This is not a good ground. 4. In this case, respondent/complainant is yet to be summoned. Even no notice was sent to the complainant/respondent. The record shows that the complainant/respondent did not appear. It appears that no notice was sent to the respondent/complainant because there is no such inkling in the order. However, the order reveals that the case was previously posted for another date in the same Bench. It is stated that the case is fixed for final arguments. Even the final arguments were heard by the previous Bench. The case is supported by an affidavit filed by Shri Prankrishna Samaddar. In view of that position, the case is restored back to the State Commission with a direction to issue notice to the -3- respondent/complainant as well before hearing the arguments on merits. It need not issue notice to the petitioner/opposite party, who has been directed to appear before the State Commission on 15.1.2015. A copy of this order be given dasti. Another copy of order be sent to the opposite party i.e. respondent/complainant immediately. The revision petition stands allowed. | 
