Heard.

          The impugned order under challenge is dated 18.09.2007, passed by the State Commission.

2.      Prima-facie it transpires from the record that the matter was listed before the State Commission on 12.04.2007.  On that day, the State Commission had passed two orders (page No. 138 and 139 of the paper book).  One of the orders passed on 12.04.2007 read as under:

          “12.04.2007

          List after six months for fixing a date.

             Sd/-                                       Sd/-

          Member                        Member”

3.      Learned counsel for the respondent state that the order dated 12.04.2007 for listing the matter after six months for fixing a date, is forged one.

4.      Under these circumstances, let the original record of the State Commission be summoned, within four weeks.

M.A. No. 784 of 2012

          Petitioner has already filed an application dated 18.10.2012, under Section 22(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for review of order dated 30.08.2012, passed by this Commission, vide which adjournment cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner.

          After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that there is no error apparent on the record, which calls for the review of the order dated 30.08.2012 since the petitioner by way of Vakalatnama has authorized only Shri Vinay Garg, Advocate on its behalf to conduct the present case.  Petitioner had never authorized Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Advocate to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner’s authority.  Hence, application for review of order dated 30.08.2012, is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.

          List the matter for Admission Hearing on 19.03.2013.