PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK Counsel for the petitoner present. The case of the petitioner was dismissed in default. The impugned order runs as follows:- “Dated : 12.7.2013 Announced by Hon’ble Sh. Ramcharan Chaudhary, Presiding Member JUDGMENT None is present on behalf of appellant since July, 2011. Complaint of the complainant/appellant was dismissed vide District Forum’s judgment/order dated 15.4.2011. In this appeal, no pairvi is being done on behalf of appellant and no notice has been sent to the respondent. In these circumstances, due to absence of the appellant and no pairvi, appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER Appeal is dismissed. A copy of this judgment/order be supplied to each part as per rules. Sd/- (Ramcharan Chaudhary) Presiding Member Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar) Member” It is thus clear that notice is yet to be issued to the respondent. Consequently we can hear the counsel for the petitioner in the absence of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the case was fixed on 06.01.2013, 12.06.2012 and again on 28.01.2013 but his case was adjourned without any rhyme or reason. The State Commission should have taken up this case on these stages. He could not appear on 12.07.2013 because according to the petitioner, the counsel was sick. Medical certificate has been attached. Under these circumstances, we restore the case without any conditions. The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.11.2013. The State Commission will try to hear the case on the date fixed. | 
