PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this revision order of the State Commission restoring the appeal has been challenged. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.7.2009. The respondents, Punjab and Sind Bank and another had filed application for recalling the said order dated 14.7.2009. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, the matter was finally heard. We have heard Counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted before us that there is no justification whatsoever for exercising power of review since the matter was never decided on merits and had been disposed of as withdrawn. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the appeal was withdrawn under mistaken notion and if the order of the District Forum is not interfered with, it will amount to miscarriage of justice. The District Forum vide order dated 7.1.2005 had accepted the complaint and directed the present Respondents to refund Rs.4 lakhs with 12% p.a. interest from the date of transferring the amount in Term Loan account and CC Account till its realization in full to the Complainant. The present Petitioners were further directed to pay Rs.4 lakhs as loss suffered by the Complainant due to non-purchase of potatoes as also Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and litigation charges. This order was challenged by the present respondents before the State Commission. On 14.7.2009. Learned Counsel for the present respondents stated before the State Commission that the parties have settled the matter out of court and appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. It may be mentioned here that on the said date of hearing no one had appeared on behalf of the present Petitioners. Once the appeal was withdrawn the appellants cannot be heard to say that the appeal was withdrawn under some mistaken notion. In the meantime, the execution proceedings have been filed for releasing the sum of Rs.4 lakhs which were allowed by the District Forum. The said order has not been challenged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that order of recall and restoration of appeal cannot be sustained. Besides this, power of review can be exercised in a matter where the matter has been disposed of on merits and as such the application for review was misconceived. In view of the above, the order of the State Commission restoring the appeal and recalling the order dated 14.7.2009 dismissing the appeal as withdrawn is hereby set aside. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.