Mr. Ritesh Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of the learned State Commission is perverse, illegal and contrary to law. It is contended that the State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, particularly when it was the Court of First Appeal. It is also contended that the absence of the petitioners on the relevant dates of hearing was unintentional. 2. In order to properly appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be useful to have a look on the impugned order, which reads thus: 5.04.2013 None Present for the appellant. None was present for appellant on 23.05.2011, 16.09.2011, 13.02.2012, 31.08.2012, 26.09.2012 and 13.02.2013 despite issue of SPC last date. It is apparent that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this matter. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. On reading of the above order, it is evident that the petitioners were grossly negligent in prosecution of the appeal and they failed to put in appearance before the State Commission on as many as seven dates of hearing. The State Commission ignored the absence of the petitioners or their counsel on six occasions and ultimately on 05.04.2013 taking note of non-appearance on behalf the appellants, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Aforesaid approach of the State Commission in our view cannot be faulted. 4. Now the question arises whether there is a reasonable explanation for non-appearance of the petitioners on as many as seven dates of hearing. The explanation of the petitioners is spelt out in paras no.2 and 3 of the revision petition, which are reproduced thus: . The Petitioner had engaged counsel in Morena and requested him to present his case before the Learned State Commission, but unfortunately he could not appear before the Learned State Commission as the distance between Bhopal and Morena is about more than 400 K.M. and there after the Petitioner was under the impression that his case is still pending adjudication before the Ld. State Commission. And upon enquiry the Petitioner came to know that the counsel could not appeared before the Court. 3. That the counsel for the Petitioner also could not appear before the Ld. State Commission on 05.04.2013 because he met with an accident and ankle was completely broken and he was advised to take bed rest. A true copy of xray and medical prescription is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-III. 5. However, the plea of the petitioner that his counsel was prevented from appearing before the State Commission on hearing dated 05.04.2013 because of ankle injury is belied by the medical prescription of Dr. Agrawal filed in support of the plea. This prescription is dated 23.03.2013. As per the prescription, five medicines were prescribed to the patient Sh.S.S.Garg. It is not clear from the record whether Sh. S.S.Garg was the counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission. Even if it is assumed that Sh.S.S.Garg, Advocate represented the petitioner before the State Commission, there is nothing in the prescription to suggest that Sh.S.S.Garg was advised bed rest. Therefore, explanation given for non appearance before the State Commission which is not even supported by the affidavit of the concerned counsel, is not acceptable. 6. On perusal of the order, it is evident that State Commission has shown enough indulgence to the petitioner before dismissing the appeal for non-appearance. Thus, we do not find any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.