PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. Respondent has filed the reply but none is present. The case was dismissed in default by the State Commission. The impugned order runs as follows:- “(1) Both the parties remained absent. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for default.” 2. From the reply of the respondent/complainant, it is apparent that the Respondent (herein petitioner) did not appear before the District Forum and Ex-parte order was passed against the respondent (petitioner herein). The reply further submits that the petitioner had given assurance that new second restructure agreement will be executed and sorted time to execute the said agreement. There is dispute about the rate of interest because the petitioner is demanding interest @ 35%. 3. Arguments from the counsel for the petitioner heard. None has appeared for the respondent, though reply has been submitted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sick on the date of hearing before the State Commission and could not appear there. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he ought to have been given an opportunity for producing those documents. It is clear that the petitioner wants to gain time by hook or crook. This petition was filed on 09.11.2012. Thereafter, this Bench gave one opportunity and one opportunity was granted by the Registrar. 4. However, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore this case before the State Commission subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- costs, which will be paid to the respondent, as litigation charges, before the next date of hearing before the State Commission on 09.04.2013. The State Commission will see the compliance of this order and proceed further to decide the case on merits. 3. The petitioner is further directed to deposit NOC with the State Commission before 09.04.2013. The disbursal of the NOC will be subject to the final outcome of the Appeal. 4. The revision petition stands disposed of. | 
