1. Counsel for the petitioner present. None present for the respondents. The respondents were served by speed post on 29.08.2012, which is revealed from the records. Again Respondent No. 2 was served on two occasions i.e. on 21.08.2012 and again on 02.11.2012. It appears that the respondents are not interested in pursuing the case. Arguments on revision petition heard. The case was dismissed in default by the State Commission. Order passed by the State Commission is reproduced as follows:- “This appeal comes before us for hearing at the state of admission. Appellant Arvind or his counsel Shri Ajay Kumar not present despite repeated calls. Appeal dismissed in appellant’s default. The record be consigned to record room.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is involved in this case. He further submits that he was present but came late. If he had appeared, subsequently, he should have asked the Court to mark his presence or he should have moved application for marking his presence. 3. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we restore the case before the State Commission without imposing any condition. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.03.2013. 4. The matter stands disposed of. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the respondents. | 
