Learned counsel for the revision petitioners is present.

       Learned counsel Mr. Satish Kumar Panigrahi appeared on behalf of Opposite Party and files vakalatnama. The same is accepted and kept in record. He also files a counter which is kept in the record.

      Petitioner challenges the order dated 19/01/2017 in C.C. no. 84 of 2014 wherby learned District Forum rejected the petition of petitioner for setting aside the the order by which the petitioner was set ex=parte.

       Heard.

        We perused the revisionpetionas well as the counter filed by parties.

        On perusal of the record it is found that learned District Forum has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner in view of provision under Section 22-A of C.P. Act 1986, which reads as folows:

          “ Power to set aside ex parte orders:

                   Where an order is passed by the National Commission ex parte against the opposite party or a complainantm as the case may be, the aggrieved party may apply to the Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice.”

As per the above provision the power has been only given to National Commission to set aside its own order. Hence,District Fora and State Commission have no power to set aside its own order.

           Moreover this Revision Petition has been filed invoking Section 17(b) of C.P. Act, 1986 which confers jurisdiction on the State Commission to interfere with an order passed in the District Forum:

                           “ i) where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law,

                             ii)or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material, irregularly”.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fails to persuade us that, the impugned order suffers from any jurisdiction error.

            In view of the above, the Revision Petition is not maintainable and hence dismissed.