This revision is directed against the order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 9.7.2013 whereby the State Commission rejected the appeal for non-prosecution. 2. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with a delay of 44 days. The petitioner has, thus, filed an application for condonation of delay. Heard. Delay is condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that absence of the petitioner on the relevant date of hearing was unintentional. The petitioner was represented by a counsel and he was under the impression that counsel would be attending the date of hearing. Counsel, however, could not appear on the date of hearing due to ill health for which the petitioner should not be made to suffer. Thus, it is urged that impugned order be set -aside and matter be remanded back to State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits. 4. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner it would be useful to have a look on the impugned order dated 9th July, 2013 which is reproduced as under: - “This file has been put up today. No one is present on behalf of the Appellant. Despite of granting time for removal of defects of the present appeal to Shri R.K. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Ld. Counsel Shri K.K. Pal for the appellant appeared on 25.8.2010, but as of today neither the defects has been removed, and nor any one is appearing in this appeal. Therefore, in such circumstances there is no justification to keep pending this appeal, because it has been revealed that the appellant has no interest in the hearing of this appeal. Therefore the appeal in the absence of appellant is rejected.” 5. On reading of the impugned order, we find that the appeal before the State Commission was filed in the year 2010. On 25th October, 2010 one R.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared as proxy counsel on behalf of counsel for the appellant and he was informed about the defects in the appeal and the petitioner was directed to remove the defects. The defects, however, were not removed. Ultimately, on 9th July, 2013 the State Commission was constrained to reject the appeal because of failure on the part of the petitioner to remove the defects in the memorandum of appeal way back in the year 2010. From the order it is clear that enough indulgence was shown to the petitioner to remove the defects but in vain. There is no explanation as to whether from the date of filing of the appeal in 2010 till the date of disposal of appeal on 9.7.2013 the petitioner contacted its counsel to find out the progress in appeal and as to why the defects were not removed. Therefore, we find no error in the impugned order of the State Commission rejecting the appeal for non-prosecution, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. In view of the discussion above, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
