Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by the consent of the parties.

3. The issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is with reference to an order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission' for brevity).

4. The petitioner had filed a First Appeal No. 481/2009, before the State Commission. On 21-11-2013, the State Commission dismissed the appeal in view of the appellant as well his Counsel remaining absent. The said appeal was, therefore, dismissed in default (DID).

5. The petitioner further contends that he attempted to file an application on the same date before the State Commission for filing of his Vakil Patra and recalling of the order of dismissal in default (DID) passed by the State Commission. However, according to the petitioner, the said application was not accepted by the office of the State Commission. He, therefore, submitted that an application on the same day was made seeking a certified copy of the order of DID, dated 21-11-2013.

6. The petitioner has