Heard. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that there is no objection if the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and petitioners are given one opportunity to file written statement, subject to payment of heavy cost as well as previous costs. The impugned order passed by the State Commission read as under; resent :- Mr. Nirmaljit Singh, Advocate for the Complainant None for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 Mr. Varun Kathuria, Advocate for O.P. No.3 Perusal of the file shows that despite availing three opportunities for filing the written statement, even imposing of cost of Rs.5,000/- on 28.6.2012, neither the written statement has been filed nor any one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. Taking into account the act and conduct of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, their defence is hereby struck off. Now to come on 21.8.2012 for evidence of the complainant. 27th July, 2012 It is apparent from the impugned order as quoted above, that petitioners had been given three opportunities to file their written statements and even adjournment cost was imposed. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners before the State Commission, in the interest of justice, present revision petition is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as cost. Cost be paid by the petitioners to respondent no.1, by way of demand draft, within four weeks. Petitioners shall file their written statements before the State Commission on the next date. In case petitioners fail to pay the cost or file their written statement within the stipulated period, then the impugned order passed by the State Commission shall remain in force. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.4.2013. Dasti to both parties.