1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners present. Respondent is served by registered post. The same be placed on record. It appears that he does not want to pursue this case. He be proceeded against exparty. 2. The case was dismissed in default on 11.10.2010 before the State Commission. The Impugned Order runs as follows:- o representation for appellant for the past many hearings, i.e., on 02.02.2012, 22.02.2012, 24.07.2012, and 5.09.2012. On 5.09.2012, it was adjourned to 11.10.2012, specifically for the appearance of the appellant. Today also there is no representation for the appellant. Appellant is also absent, though the case is specifically posted for the appearance, thereby showing the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case. Therefore no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal on file. Hence the appeal is dismissed for default 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel for the petitioner bank at the stage of pendency of case before State Commission, could not inform the bank about the dates. The counsel does not want to disclose his name and the name of the advocate is nowhere mentioned in the petition. There is no evidence that some action was taken against the counsel or some complaint was filed against him before the ar Council It clearly goes to show that none appeared for the petitioners for as many as six hearings. This has become a fashion to make allegations against the counsel, that, too, in his absence. We are of the considered view that allegations made against the advocate without any evidence are false. No sufficient ground has been given for the restoration of the application. 3. This is the duty of the litigant to go to the office of his advocate and ask the next date of hearing. Inordinate delay is attributable to the bank employees. However, counsel states that petitioner was not given notice before the appeal was dismissed in default. This is a novel argument. When the court dismisses the complaint it is not incumbent that a notice to the party has to be sent. This is the discretion of the court. 4. However, in the interest of the justice, we give one more opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the State Commission, subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as costs, upon the petitioners which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government Under Section 12(3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within one month from today, otherwise the order of the dismissal in default held by the State Commission shall prevail. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.05.2013. 4. Since the respondent has not appeared before this court, therefore, the notice be sent to the respondent for 07.05.2013.