This revision petition is directed against the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai dated 27.09.2012 and 02.11.2012, which are reproduced thus: ated : 27/09/2012 ORDER Advocate for the Appellant requests for time on the ground that Advocate on record Ms.Vaishali Choudhari, is busy in High Court. Time granted subject to cost of `5,000/- to be paid to the Respondent by the appellant. If cost is not paid within one week from today, the appeal shall stand automatically dismissed without reference to this bench. Matter stands adjourned to 02/11/2012. Later on Ms.Vaishali Choudhary Advocate, along with Mr.D.B. Rathod, Advocate appears for the Appellant before us and requests for reduction of cost awarded earlier. She files an application to that effect. She undertakes to serve application on the Respondent before the next date. Matter is already adjourned to 02/11/2012. Dated: 02.11.2012 ORDER Heard Ms.Vaishali Choudhary, Advocate for the appellant and respondent present in person. She has filed an application for recall of order passed by this Commission on 27/09/2012 imposing costs of `5,000/- to be paid to the respondent. That cost is not paid. Her application for recall of order is opposed by the respondent. Power of recall is not vested with the District Forum and State Commission and it is vested only with the National Commission as per Section 22 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, there is a judgement of the Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.4307/2007 in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. V/s. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, wherein the Apex Court clearly held that the District Forum and the State Commission have no power of review or power to set aside the ex-parte order. Therefore, application filed by the appellant stands rejected. In view of the order passed on 27/09/2012 this appeal does not survive for consideration since we passed the order that if cost is not paid within one week, the appeal shall stands automatically dismissed without reference to this Bench. That self speaking order cannot be revived even for giving extension to the appellant for payment of costs. Hence, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed for non-payment of costs to the respondent. 2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. 2. Notice of revision petition was sent along with Rs.7500/- to the respondent to meet his travelling and allied expenses. The respondent instead of putting in appearance has sent his reply affidavit by post along with an application seeking exemption from personal appearance and requesting that the revision petition be decided in his absence on perusal of record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the petitioners for non-payment of cost for adjournment within the stipulated time of one week is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the cost was imposed because of non-availability of counsel for the appellants in the appeal in the early session on 27.09.2012. The State Commission has further failed to appreciate that on the same date Ms.Vaishali Choudhary, Advocate along with Mr.D.B. Rathod, Advocate appeared before the State Commission and filed an application for reduction of the cost imposed in the earlier session. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the order dated 02.11.2012 and contended that the aforesaid order is not sustainable because the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the cost for adjournment was not paid by the appellants because its application for reduction of cost was pending disposal. It is further argued that the impugned order is a harsh and if it is allowed to sustain, shall cause grave injustice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent and urged us to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits. 4. We find merit in the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. This, however, is subject to the petitioners depositing the cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the State Commission vide order dated 27.09.2012 with the concerned State Commission within two weeks, which amount shall be paid to the respondent. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits after issuing notice to the parties. Petitioners to appear before the State Commission on 27.09.2013.