1. Ld. Counsel for parties are present. Arguments heard. The Impugned Order runs as follows:- Counsel for OP No. 1 & 2 filed W.S. Copy supplied to the counsel for complainant. OP No. 3 & 4 are absent. Copy of the complaint book was already delivered to OP No. 3 & 4 on the last date of hearing. Therefore, OP No. 3 & 4 will proceed ex-parte. Fixed 19.10.2012 for filing rejoinder and evidence of the complainant. 2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner explains that he could not appear before the State Commission on 09.07.2012 because the case was proceeded against ex-parte against him at 11 A.M. There is no such inkling on the record. If, he was proceeded against ex-parte at 11 A.M., he should have moved an application immediately and it would have created evidence in his favour. 3. Thereafter, he moved an application for restoration of the appeal for setting aside the ex-parte order on 09.07.2012. By that time the Supreme Court order was announced in August, 2011 that State Commission had no power to review its order. However the advocate should have known that State Commission has no power to review its order and the petitioner should have approached this Commission immediately. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.10.2012. The petitioner went on waiting for three months for withdrawing the application. Thereafter this revision petition was filed on 26.11.2012. 4. The petitioner did not take the trouble to file the application for condonation of delay. Moreover, the State Commission directed the petitioner to file the written statement within 6 weeks on 13.03.2012. The written statement was not filed within 6 weeks as ordered by the state commission. The right of the petitioner to file the written statement is to be forfeited as per Section 13 (1) Clause of Consumer Protection Act. The written statement was not filed before the State Commission till now. It is being now produced before this commission. 5. The Apex Court in three judges bench in case reported in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi III (2002 CPJ 8 (SC) 8, held: .From the aforesaid section, it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered to. If this is not adhered, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated. 4. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Neither the petitioners can file the written statement nor can lead evidence. However there lies no rub in joining the proceedings and raise the legal objections in respect of the complaint during the final arguments.