Heard. 2. In the present case, initially the complaint was filed by one Shri Pramod Chander Malhotra before the District Forum, who died during pendency of the complaint. 3. Legal heirs of deceased Pramod Chander Malhotra, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC ( copy at page 64 of the paper book) for substitution of his legal heirs. 4. District Forum as per order dated 8.10.2009 (copy placed at page 62 of the paper book) allowed the application for substitution. Therefore, amended memo of parties was also filed (copy placed at page 66 of the paper book). 5. It appears that inadvertently while passing the final order dated 4.11.2011, name of original complainant i.e. deceased Pramod Chandra Malhotra was shown as the complainant by the District Forum in the title of its judgment and the complaint was allowed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner/Opposite Party filed appeal before the State Commission which vide its impugned order dated 11.10.012, dismissed the appeal only on this ground that appeal against a dead person is not maintainable. 7. It appears that due to the mistake of the District Forum which did not take into consideration the amended memo of parties, it passed the final order against a dead person. 8. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal on that premises, that the appeal has been filed against a dead person. 9. Under these circumstances, with the consent of the parties, we allow the present revision petition and direct the State Commission to take into consideration the amended memo of the parties filed before the District Forum. We, accordingly, remand the matter to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with provisions of law after hearing both the parties. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 6.1.2014. 11. Dasti to both parties.