Learned counsel for the respondent has filed reply which is taken on record. This revision petition is directed against the impugned order of State Commission, New Delhi dated 26.09.2012 whereby the State Commission foreclosed the right of the petitioner / opposite party to file written statement on the ground that despite having received the copy of the complaint on previous date of hearing, the petitioner / opposite party failed to file written statement and fixed the matter for recording evidence of the complainant. /2/ 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the State Commission is harsh and it has potential to prejudice the rights of the petitioner. It is contended that the failure of the petitioner to file written statement was unintentional and petitioner was prevented from filing written statement because relevant information was required to be collected from the regional office. It is further contended that impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reason that the State Commission failed to appreciate that it was the first opportunity for filing written statement because copy of the complaint was supplied to the petitioner only on 23.05.2012. The State Commission, therefore, instead of foreclosing the right of the petitioner to file written statement should have granted adjournment. Learned counsel further stated that stakes involved in this mater are very high and if the petitioner is not permitted to file written statement, it would cause grave prejudice to his right. Learned counsel Shri D.D.Dayani, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He contended that State Commission has rightly closed the right of the petitioner to file written statement because he had ample time to file written statement but in order to delay the proceedings of the case, he refrained from filing written statement. /3/ 3. We have considered the rival submissions. Undisputedly 23.09.2012 was the first date of hearing for filing written statement after the supply of copy of complaint to the petitioner. Therefore, in our view, in view of the explanation given by the petitioner for non filing of written statement, the order of the State Commission foreclosing the right of the petitioner to file written statement is harsh and if it is allowed to remain, it will result in grave prejudice and injustice to the petitioner. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to file written statement latest by 25.02.2013, the date fixed by the State Commission, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent for the delay caused. 4. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.