No one appears on behalf of respondent no.1 even on the second call. He is proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by State Commission Rajasthan whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the District Forum has preferred this revision. 2. Ms. Arti Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for it is a non-speaking order wherein the pleas taken by the appellant in the appeal have not been addressed to. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits. 3. Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that it has been passed after taking into account overall facts and evidence as also the reasoned order passed by the District Forum. Thus, he has urged for dismissal of revision petition. 4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus: he Subordinate District Forum has passed the order after carefully analyzing all the facts and evidence of the complaint in detail. Therefore, we do not find any justification in re-analyzing the evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the Order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur First, Jaipur. As the District Forum has applied prudence on the facts available on record, there seems no ground to interfere the same. Besides above, there seems no summary in the Appeal on merits also. Hence, the order dated 22.12.2010 passed in Complaint No.1375/2008 by the District Forum, Jaipur First, Jaipur is upheld and appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merits. 5. On reading of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner has neither referred to the facts of the case nor it has referred to the grounds of challenge to the order of the District Forum nor it has given any reason for rejection of those grounds and dismissal of the appeal. Thus, the impugned order is non-speaking order as such not sustainable. Similar issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter HVPNL vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of the similar order passed by the State Commission set aside the order of the State Commission, Haryana with the following observations: . The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21-7-2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21-7-2000 after giving notice to the parties. 6. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. 6. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order suffers from infirmity being non-speaking order and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to hear the parties on merits and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order referring to the facts of the case as also the arguments of the respective parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 08.01.2014. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeal within three months from the appearance of the parties before there.