Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner for not handing over possession of the plot notwithstanding receipt of major part of consideration money and also there being deficiency in construction, a consumer complaint came to be filed with the District Forum. The District Forum while accepting the complaint, directed builder to deliver possession of the flat on receipt of balance consideration money. The appeal preferred by the petitioner-builder was however dismissed for belated filing of appeal. -2- Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner was that he could not appear before District Forum and the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. Misfortunate followed thereafter too, as even before State Commission, when petitioner failed to appear in proceedings, the proceeding was decided ex-parte and appeal was dismissed for belated filing of appeal. Referring to the grounds taken to assail the finding of the State Commission, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though title page of the State Commission’s order says presence of counsel of the petitioner, the appeal on the first day itself was dismissed on the ground of belated filing of appeal without giving audience to the petitioner’s counsel or the petitioner who could not attend proceedings on that day due to disrupted service of train due to heavy rain on 23rd July, 2009. Though various contentions are raised on behalf of parties, in view of the sequence of these events for petitioner not participating in the proceedings before Fora below, while setting aside finding of the State Commission, the case is remanded back to the State Commission to render a fresh finding on merit on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by petitioner to the respondent. The proceedings be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months after receipt of the order of this Commission, on due notice to the parties. -3- This revision petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms.