This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 941/2013 M/s. A2Z Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. DACSS Granites Pvt. Ltd. by which, stay was granted subject to depositing 50% of the awarded amount. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and District Forum passed ex-parte order against the OP/petitioner and allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.11,54,764/- with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded cost of Rs.3,000/-. Appeal was filed by the OP before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order granted stay subject to depositing of 50% of the awarded amount against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in granting stay subject to depositing 50% of the awarded amount; hence, impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that one year has passed, but so far petitioner has not complied with the directions and delayed in execution of the order and further submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record reveals that respondent was proceeded ex-parte and learned District Forum allowed complaint ex-parte and directed OP to pay Rs.11,54,764/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was liable to be dismissed, but the District Forum erroneously allowed complaint. At this stage, we cannot consider this argument because appeal is to be heard on merits by learned State Commission and in this revision petition only it is to be seen whether order granting stay subject to deposit is in accordance with law, or not. 6. Learned State Commission granted stay subject to depositing 50% of the awarded amount with the Commission within two weeks. Apparently, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Not only this, while issuing notice to the respondent by this Commission, this Commission also stayed operation of the District Forum order subject to depositing 50% of the awarded amount with the State Commission meaning thereby, this Commission also extended time for depositing amount by order dated 17.2.2014, but petitioner has not deposited this amount so far. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner is not interested in availing benefit of stay order and as impugned order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.