PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Civil Misc. Appl. No. 264 of 2012 in Appeal No. 449 of 2011 UHBVNL, Sonepat & Anr. Vs. Sumitra Devi through Promila W/o Abhimanyun Sharma by which, application for restoration was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-appellant appeal was dismissed by the learned State Commission on 15.2.2012 on account of non-appearance. Petitioner filed restoration application which was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by the learned State Commission is not in accordance with law and learned State Commission should have restored appeal at its original number; hence, petition be allowed and appeal may be restored. 5. It is an admitted case that petitioner appeal was dismissed on account of default of petitioner vide order dated 15.2.2012 and restoration application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order. Learned State Commission has referred judgment of Honle Apex Court 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 175 Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Acynt Kashinath Karekar & Anr. and in the light of this judgment, learned State Commission had no power to recall or review its own order dated 15.2.2012. As order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law which does not call for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.