No one appears for the petitioner.  Even then we have gone through the grounds set out in the revision petition in order to assail the impugned order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in CMP. S.R. No. 1831 of 2011 in FA No. 559 of 2008.  A reading of the said order would show that despite the appeal having been earlier allowed by the State Commission remanding the matter to the District Forum affording an opportunity to the petitioner-opposite party to contest the complaint, of course subject to certain cost, the petitioner-opposite party failed to utilize the said opportunity and did not make the payment of the cost within the stipulated period.  The petitioner-opposite party ought to have realized that he was ex-parte in the complaint and the appellate forum showing indulgence has granted him the opportunity to defend the complaint with a clear stipulation that in case the cost was not paid the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.  By not complying with the directions contained in the earlier order, the petitioner-opposite party was not entitled to any further indulgence.  The order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which calls for interference by this Commission.

          Besides that, the petition has been filed after a delay of 63 days, for which no satisfactory explanation has been rendered.

          Dismissed.