JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. This revision petition is directed against the miscellaneous order passed by the State commission Odisha dated 03-11-2015 whereby the State Commission condoned the delay of 370 days in filing of the appeal. Relevant order reads as under: “This relates to a petition for condonation of delay of 370 days in preferring the appeal. Heard. Went through the limitation petition. There is sufficient cause to condone the delay, but at the same time the OP/respondent should not suffer any loss because of no fault of her own. So, it would be just & proper, if the delay is condoned subject to payment of some cost. Accordingly, the delay is condoned & the misc.case is disposed of subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/- (Four Thousand) by the petitioner to the OP on the next date.” 2. Learned Mr. Shakti K. Pattanaik, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been obtained by the respondent by misquoting the facts before the State Commission. Expanding on the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the extracts of miscellaneous proceedings drawn by the District Forum during the pendency of the original complaint as also during the execution proceedings. It is pointed out that perusal of the proceedings recorded by the District Forum on 24-01-2012 would show that on the said date opposite party No.1 was absent, therefore, it was proceeded ex parte, and the complaint was ultimately decided ex parte against opposite party No.1. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any evidence which may suggest that free copy of the ex parte order passed against the respondent was served upon him. Respondent in his application for condonation of delay has claimed that he was not aware of the order of the District Forum and he came to know about the ex parte order passed against him when he received the notice of execution proceedings. There is no evidence to show the exact dates of service of notice of execution petition. On perusal of the proceeding dated 26-11-2014 we find that on the said date Mr. Debashish Mohapatra & Associates filed their power of attorney on behalf of the respondent-judgment debtor. Therefore, it is obvious that respondent-judgment debtor must have been served with the notice of the execution proceedings some time earlier to 26-11-2014. From the above plea of the concealment as misstatement of fact is not substantiated. The State Commission has rightly considered the application for condonation of delay and condoned the delay subject to cost. We find no reason to interfere with the order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
