None appeared on behalf of the Respondent, despite service of notice through registered AD post, even on the second call. Respondent, is therefore, proceeded ex-parte. 2. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 17.09.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the Order of the District Forum dated 15.05.2010 for non-prosecution. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the Petitioner did appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing and despite that the appeal was dismissed in default. In order to properly appreciate the contention of Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner it will be useful to look at the impugned order:- resent: Appellant in person. Shri Rajesh Kumar, Counsel for the respondent. Case called out twice since morning. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in appellant default. The record be consigned to the record room. 4. On perusal of the above order it transpires that the Petitioner was present on the date of hearing but despite of that the State Commission for the reasons best known to them have dismissed the Petition in default instead of hearing the party and disposing the matter on merit. The approach adopted by the State Commission is highly irregular and against all tenants of law. The Revision Petition is, therefore, accepted. Impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal on merits in accordance with law after hearing the parties. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 18.03.2013.