As per office report, Respondent No.2 remains unserved. However, we find from the order impugned in this Appeal that when the said order was passed by the State Commission, the said Respondent, Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, had not been served with a notice. Under the circumstances, we feel that it is unnecessary to have the notice served in this Appeal on Respondent No.2, which has been impleaded only because of the fact that it happened to be one of the Opposite Parties in the Complaint. The Complainant is present in person. He states that in order to avoid further delay in adjudication in the Complaint, he would have no objection if the order impugned is set aside and an opportunity is granted to the Appellant to file its Written Version within a specified time subject to payment of costs. In view of the statement made by the Complainant, we allow the Appeal, and set aside the impugned order, with a direction that if the Appellant files its Written Version within 30 days from today, the same shall be taken on record, subject to the Appellant paying to the Complainant costs of ₹25,000/-. The costs shall be paid before the State Commission. The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 05.12.2017, the date already fixed, for further proceedings in accordance with law. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to further costs. | 
