The State Commission disposed of the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant as having been settled. Counsel for the complainant/respondent, who was the appellant before the State Commission, made a statement before the State Commission that -2- the complainant is prepared to pay Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party. Sh.Vishwajhit Shetty, counsel appearing for the petitioner herein– respondent before the State Commission – agreed to return the R.C. and other original documents on receipt of Rs.25,000/-. The appeal was disposed of with the observations thus: “Appellant/complainant is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the OPs within three months from today. In the event, if the appellant/complainant fails to pay the said amount within three months, the appellant/complainant is liable to pay interest at 6% per annum on the said sum of Rs.25,000/- from the date of the complaint filed before the DF till realization. The respondent/OPs are directed to return the RC book and the original documents in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-38/1879 to get the name of the appellant/complainant entered in the RC book as the owner by filing necessary forms before the RTO.” Petitioner/opposite party has filed the present revision petition alleging therein that Sh. Vishwajhit Shetty, who had appeared on behalf of the respondent before the State Commission did not -3- concede or agree to the settlement and the fact that he had agreed to return the R.C. and other original documents on receipt of Rs.25,000/- was factually incorrect. In support of the averment made, petitioner has filed the affidavit of Sh. Vishwajhit Shetty making an averment that: 3. I say that I have not agreed for receiving the amount of Rs.25,000/- offered by the complainant/appellant, namely Mr.Santosh. I further say that I had not agreed to get name of the complainant/appellant entered in the RC book as owner, on receipt of Rs.25,000/-. 4. I say that due to some inadvertence it seems that a concession has been recorded on my part by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in order dated 30.11.2006 in Appeal No.669/2006.” The affidavit filed by Sh. Vishwajhit Shetty, Advocate has not been controverted or rebutted by the respondent. Since the affidavit of Sh. Vishwajhit Shetty has not been rebutted by the respondent, we allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remand -4- the case back to the State Commission for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 06.04.2011. Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within four months of first date of appearance. | 
