JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The main question which revolves round this controversy is, hether the amended complaint Ipso facto sets aside the ex-parte order against the OP? The facts of this revision petition filed by HDFC Bank Ltd., the petitioner/Opposite Party are these. Richa Sethi, the complainant filed a complaint as she did not receive the insurance amount. The petitioner Bank was proceeded against ex-parte for its non-appearance on 03.06.2010. The petitioner Bank moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. On 16.04.2012, the application, moved by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.06.2010 was dismissed. 2. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner Bank preferred a Revision Petition No. 44/2012, before the State Commission, on 15.06.2012, which was dismissed on 29.06.2012. 3. Thereafter, this revision petition was filed. The principal argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner was that during the pendency of the case, before the District Forum, an application for the amendment of the complaint was moved. The said application was allowed. He contended that he should be permitted to file written statement to that amended complaint. Interestingly, he did not argue that ex-parte order should be set aside or what were the facts and circumstances which led the consumer forum to pass an ex-parte order. 4. We are unable to countenance the above said contention. The application for amendment of the complaint was filed after the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte. It should have got the ex-parte order set aside and thereafter, it is entitled to file the written statement to the amended complaint. Since it has already been proceeded against ex-parte, thereafter, it cannot file the written statement to the amended complaint. The amended complaint does not revive the proceedings from the very start. However, it can join the proceedings meaning thereby, that it can present itself there and raise objection to the inherent defect in the complaint itself. It defence is not to be considered. Even at the time of arguments, it can argue that the complaint is inherently defective but the Commission is not required to consider it defences which were never raised. Again, the order passed by the State Commission clarifies the position. It relevant extract runs as follows ven on our asking, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ex-proceedings were initiated against it on 03.06.2010 and thereafter, application for setting aside the ex-parte order was moved by the petitioner on 04.01.2012, on which date the application was hopelessly time barred. As far as the order passed on the application is concerned, we feel that there was no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order, because the District Forum has taken strength from the law settled by the Honle Supreme Court in this regard 5. The order rendered by the State Commission is flawless. The revision petition is ill-founded and, therefore, the same is dismissed.