This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 20.03.2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum for non-prosecution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the matter was listed for 20.03.2013 almost four months after the filing of the appeal without prior intimation or notice of date of hearing to the petitioner. This plea of the petitioner is not refuted by the counsel for the respondents. 3. In order to appreciate the plea of the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on the impugned order, which is reproduced thus: resent: None. FA-1060/12 The case called out repeatedly. Neither the appellant nor the respondent appeared. No counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant. Appeal is dismissed in his default. FDR, if any, be released. 4. On reading of the above, we find that none of the parties was present on the relevant date of hearing and there is no mention of notice having been issued to the petitioner or the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order was passed by the State Commission without any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not sustainable. Revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merit after due hearing the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 08.05.2014.