This appeal has been filed with a delay of 125 days which is over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken. Only reason given for condonation of delay is that the file was moving from table to table to get the sanction to file the appeal. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. Day-to-day delay has not been explained. Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are as under: “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.” Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this appeal. A dhaba site 161 allotted to the Complainant/respondent, who was the highest bidder, was resumed by the appellant vide Memo No.2539 dated 8.11.1998 and Rs.25,500/- deposited by the respondent were forfeited. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint which was allowed by the District Forum. Appeal preferred by the appellant before the District Forum was dismissed. Revision petition filed by the appellant before this Commission was also dismissed. Respondent thereafter filed the execution application before the District Forum. Appellant, on being served, took the plea that the decree could not be executed as the respondent did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as he had got the site in auction. District Forum accepted the said plea and dismissed the execution application. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the revision petition before the State Commission which set aside the order of the District Forum dated 30.4.2011 passed in execution and remitted the case back to the District Forum to dispose of the execution application in accordance with law by observing that the order passed in complaint having attained finality up to National Commission, question of Complainant not being a ‘consumer’ could not be raised in the execution proceedings. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Executing court cannot go behind the decree. Complaint filed by the respondent was allowed by the District Forum which order was upheld up to this Commission. The order passed in the complaint having attained finality, the plea that the decree-holder was not a ‘consumer’ could not be taken up and agitated before the executing court. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. | 
