ORDER (ORAL) 1. Vide this revision petition the petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.11.2019 whereby his application for an ad interim relief has been declined. It is submitted that the petitioner was not heard on merit and without hearing the petitioner the application for ad interim relief was declined. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in a bad shape and was unable to pay the decretal amount, as directed by the State Commission vide its order dated 22.7.2019 and this fact was not considered by the State Commission while passing the impugned order. 2. I have perused the file and heard the arguments at length. -2- 3. The petitioner had challenged the order of the District Forum vide appeal No.FA No.397 of 2019. Alongwith his appeal, he has also moved an application for grant of ad interim stay. The State Commission heard the arguments on the appeal and issued notice for 15.11.2019. On 22.7.2019, the State Commission heard the petitioner on his application for grant of ad interim stay of the order of the District Forum and passed the order in favour of the petitioner i.e. ad interim stay was granted to the petitioner. Following order was passed by the State Commission on 15.11.2019 : “As per the registry, respondent No.1 stands duly served. However, respondents No.2 and 3 have not been served so far. A letter dated 04.11.2019 has been received from respondent No.1 expressing his inability in appearing before the Commission for today. Learned counsel for the appellants has informed the Commission that the appellants have not deposited the awarded amount with the learned District Forum within the prescribed period. As such, interim order dated 22.7.2019 is recalled and the application for ad interim relief is declined. Fresh notice be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 by registered post for 10.04.2020.” 4. Admittedly the petitioner did not comply with the directions of the State Commission dated 22.7.2019 and did not deposit the awarded amount with the District Forum within 45 days. These 45 days expired somewhere in September, 2019 and till that time no steps were taken by the petitioner. Admittedly, no application for extension of time for such deposit was also moved by the petitioner, and, therefore, on the date of hearing i.e. 15.11.2019 when the matter was taken up and the State Commission learned that its order dated -3- 22.7.2019 has not been complied with, it made it clear that the ad interim relief is declined meaning thereby that there is no stay in the appeal. 5. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the present revision has no merit, the same is hereby dismissed. | 
