None appears for respondent no. 3 today though Mr. V.S. Chopra, advocate appeared for respondent no. 3 on the last date of hearing. Respondent no. 3 is also proceeded ex-parte. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 3. Perusal of record reveals that learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 09-02-2011 dismissed appeal on account of absence of petitioner but on that day advocate Mr. T.H. Naqvi representing respondent was present. 4. Though appeal was dismissed on 09-02-2011, as per report of State Commission free copy of impugned order was sent to the petitioner on 08-06-2012. Hence this revision petition has been filed on 06-07-2012. This is well in limitation. 5. Perusal of the impugned order also reveals that only website information has been treated as information to the petitioner of hearing of the case. In fact notice should have been given by the State Commission to the petitioner for hearing of the case and only if petitioner did not appear after service of notice, appeal should have been dismissed in default. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as petitioner counsel was occupied in other court, he could not appear before State Commission and appeal was dismissed in default. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal. 7. Consequently revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 09-02-2011 passed by learned State Commission in appeal no. 1422 of 2009 Commissioner of Trade Tax & Ors. Vs. Malti Devi & Ors is set aside subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- as cost to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks by the petitioner. The matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. Petitioner is directed to appear before State Commission on 12-08-2013. Till date of appearance before State Commission, learned District Forum will not take any coercive steps for implementation of District Forum order.