PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. Respondent No. 2 has not turned up despite service through speed post. The impugned order was passed on 07.08.2013, which runs as follows:- “None for the appellant. Sh. Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Sh. Udai Palnitkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The appellant was absent on 17.9.2012, 19.11.2012 and 17.4.2013 as well. This shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want for prosecution.” 2. The above order sheet clearly shows that the appellant did not appear on 4 dates. This only happens with the service provider, but not with the consumer. The intention is to delay the case unnecessarily. It clearly shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner. 3. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the case before the State Commission subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs, which will be paid to the respondent Lions Club Rewa, through demand draft in person. 4. The case stand restored. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.04.2014. The State Commission will satisfy that the costs stand paid and will hear the case expeditiously as per Law. 5. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. | 
