Complainant/respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner did not appear in spite of service and was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. Being aggrieved petitioner has -2- filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the ex-party order. According to counsel for the petitioner, petitioner did not file the application before the District Forum to recall the order as the District Forum does not have the power to recall/review its own order in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in “Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors.Versus Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. - (2011)9 SCC 541.”. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Commission bye-passing the statutory remedy of filing the appeal before the State Commission. Counsel for the petitioner contends that no useful purpose would be served in filing the appeal before the State Commission, as the State Commission also does not have the power to review/recall the order passed by the District Forum ordering ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. State Commission, while sitting in appellate jurisdiction, does not review/recall either the order passed by it or the order passed by the District Forum. It exercises its appellate jurisdiction under which it can pass any order deemed fit. Petitioner, cannot bye-passing the remedy of filing the appeal before the State Commission, file the revision petition before this Commission challenging the order of the District Forum. -3- Revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty with the petitioner to file the appeal before the State Commission. In case, the petitioner files the appeal within four weeks from today, the State Commission is directed to entertain the same without objection to limitation. Order dasti. | 
