Learned counsel for the respondent has filed Vakalatnama along with the reply. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal was dismissed by learned State Commission on 16-10-2012 on account of petitioner non-appearance as on earlier date i.e. 27-09-2012 counsel who appeared for the petitioner had not informed next date to the main counsel so it may be restored. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner has neither placed copy of order sheet dated 27-09-2012 nor there is any reasonable explanation for non-appearance on 16-10-2012, hence revision petition be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel categorically stated in revision petition that the counsel who appeared on 27-09-2012 before the Bench did not convey next date to counsel for the petitioner and in such circumstances appeal was dismissed in default. As revision petition has been dismissed in default by impugned order dated 16-10-2012, we deem it appropriate it to set aside the impugned order subject to cost and restore the appeal so that the matter may be decided on merits after hearing both the parties. 5. Consequently, revision petitions is allowed and impugned order dated 16-10-2012 passed by learned State Commission in F.A. No. 238 of 2011 Harmesh Chand Sharma vs Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Una (H.P.) is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent and appeal is restored at its original number and learned State Commission is directed to proceed in accordance with the law. 6. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 11-10-2013.