Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 22 / 03 whereby the State Commission condoned the delay in filing of the complaint. The impugned order is reproduced thus:

“Heard on application for condonation of delay. Reason given in the application of condonation for delay seems sufficient. Therefore Delay is condone.

Matter admitted for hearing. Counsel for opposite party is present; there is no need to issue notice. File is put up for reply on 15.07.2013”.

2. Shri Satish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason it is a non speaking order, bereft of any details and also because the order was passed in undue haste without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is contended that State Commission has committed a serious illegality by condoning the delay without any sufficient cause.

3. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find tha