JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is present in person. Learned counsel for the respondent is also present. 2. The State Commission has passed the order with the consent of the parties. The State Commission passed the order on 10.12.2012. The said order is hereby reproduced as under:- “This appeal by the OP No. 1 & 2 arising out of complaint case No. 220/9 against order dated 12.08.11 passed by the District Forum by which it directed the appellant to make the payment of Rs.20,000/- jointly or severaly as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. During the course of the hearing, parties have arrived to term and it is agreed between them that in case the appellant/OP-1&2 submits the bills for payment received by the respondent/complainant in respect of the purchase of car in accordance with the quotation dated 23.12.08 submitted by the appellant to the respondent (photocopy of which at page 22 annexed with the appeal), the respondent will have no grievance. The amount of the quotation is Rs.3,35,910/-. It is admitted by the respondent/complainant that the appellant/OP-1 & 2 should furnish the bill mentioning all the amounts in accordance with the quotations and thereafter the respondent will have no objection for his grievance. Under these circumstances, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, it is hereby directed that the appellant/OP-1 & 2 shall deliver the proper bill (in accordance with the amount mentioned in the quotation) to the respondent/complainant within 4 weeks. Costs easy. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to Record room. 3. The matter already stands settled. This Commission cannot interfere. In case, there is some problem to any party, they should approach the executing court as decree or order already stands passed. 4. This view is supported by the judgment of this Commission in the case of DCM Ltd. vs. Om Prakash Saini & Ors. in first appeal No. 744 of 2006 on 19.10.2012 wherein it was held: “Appellant filed the appeal and later on got it dismissed as withdrawn. Application No. 218/2012 has been filed seeking recall of the order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. Since the appeal had been withdraw by the appellant voluntarily, no ground for recall/restoring the appeal is made out. Dismissed.” 5. SLP was preferred before the Supreme Court which dismissed the same, in petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4081 of 2013 in F.A. No. 744 of 2006 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 1.2.2013. 6. The revision petition has no force, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
