Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide impugned order dated 26.3.2012 appeal was dismissed by learned State Commission on the ground that petitioners failed to supply correct address of respondent in spite of many opportunities. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the address supplied by the petitioners in the memo of appeal was correct and complainant/respondent herself filed execution application before the District Forum revealing same address on 4.10.2012. In such circumstances, it appears that address furnished by petitioners in the memo of appeal before the State Commission was correct and petitioners were not required to furnish another address but at the same time petitioners should have taken notices dasti and got them served on the respondent which they failed to do. This memo of revision petition has also been filed after delay of 126 days but learned counsel for the petitioners in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also mentioned that only after confirming address of the respondent this petition has been filed and in confirming address, delay occurred. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. Consequently, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and delay in filing petition is condoned. Impugned order dated 26.3.2012 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No.917/2011 (Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Veena Rani) is set aside, and appeal is restored to its original number, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Aid Account. Learned State Commission is also directed to issue fresh notice on the same address of the respondent/complainant. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 13.12.2012.