PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Being aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2011 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, tate Commission petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 3 days has been filed. However, as per Office note there is delay of 96 days. 2. The grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought are reproduced as under; . That the present Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in F.A. No.664 of 2008 was passed on 28.02.2010 by the Hon’ble State Commission but the same had not been sent to the Petitioner herein. Though the order was passed on 28.02.2011 was not received by the Petitioner or its Counsel. The Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant applied for the order copy on 15.07.2011, the order copy was made ready and was furnished on the same day i.e. 15.07.2011. 4. That the Petitioner herein had received the certified copy of the impugned order on 15.07.2011, then the Petitioner went to Hyderabad to collect documents/material papers from the Counsel at Hyderabad. The Petitioner could not file the same within stipulated time for preferring the above Revision Petition. The Petitioner was looking for appropriate Counsel to represent her case in New Delhi and they have no contacts in New Delhi and it also took time to explain the facts to the counsel at New Delhi. That the delay caused in the matter is due to reasons mentioned above and are beyond the control of the Petitioner. In view of the same, it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of three days in filing the present Revision Petition. 3. As per above averments, the case of the petitioner is that she did not receive the copy of the impugned order at all and it was only on 15.7.2011 that her counsel applied for copy of the order which was made available on that very day. Thereafter, revision petition has been filed on 18.10.2011. 4. As per certified copy of the impugned order placed by the petitioner on record, there is an endorsement that the free copy was issued to the petitioner on 15.4.2011. Petitioner has not controverted this fact at all that, neither she nor her counsel had received the free copy of the order on 15.4.2011. Surprisingly, petitioner in the entire application has nowhere stated as to how all of a sudden she woke up on 15.7.2011 and applied for the certified copy of the impugned order. This story put forward by the petitioner is clearly an after-thought. It is well settled that erson can tell lie, but the documents cannot Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the free copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner as early as on 15.4.2011. Admittedly, revision has been filed before this Commission only on 18.10.2011. Thus, there is no sufficient explanation on behalf of the petitioner for this long delay of 96 days. 5. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ; t 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 7. The observations made by the Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra), are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, no sufficient grounds whatsoever are made out to condone the long delay of 96 days. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed. 8. Consequently, the present revision petition being barred by limitation, stand dismissed, 9. No order as to cost.