Attendance on behalf of both the parties have been        filed.    

None present on behalf of    applicant.

Learned Lawyer for the o.ps submits that this Misc. petition is not maintainable and this court has got no jurisdiction  to restore its final order.

Perused the record. On perusal of record it  transpires that the applicant has filed an application on 24-02-2016 under order-9 rule-4 and section-151 of  C.P.C with prayer to restore the dismissal  order dated 13-10-2015 and to restore complaint case no.-9/2014  in its original position.

The complaint no.-9/2014 has been dismissed in default vide order dated  13-10-2015 and restoration  petition has been filed on 14-02-2016. Order 9 rule-4 and section-151 of CPC is not applicable in Consumer Protection Act-1986.

In the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak  and other V/s Achut Kashinath  Karekar and another civil appeal No. 4307/2007  with civil appeal No.-8155/2001, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  has observed that  the District  Forum  and the State Commissions have not  been  given  any power to set-a-site ex. Party order and power of   review  which have not been  expressly given in the statute  cannot be exercised. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 does not empower this forum to restore orreview its own order. In the circumstances this Misc. application is dismissed.