Heard. 2. Along with the present revision petition an application seeking condonation of delay of 24 days has been filed. However, as per office report, there is a delay of 57 days. 3. Petitioner/ complainant had filed a consumer complaint in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode, Kerala (in short, he District Forum against the Respondents/ OPs on the allegations that he is a prospective investor in the share market and invested Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in Unit Gain Policy of respondent no. 1. Petitioner lost a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh in Intra Transaction facilities. Thus, petitioner has claimed Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation on account of loss suffered by him in terms of different between the in unit price prevailing on 17.08.2007. 4. The complaint was contested by the respondent. 5. District Forum, vide order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the complaint holding that the petitioner has not been able to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. 6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, he State Commission which vide order dated 30.09.2011, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum. 7. Hence, the present revision petition. 8. As per office report, impugned order was passed on 30.09.2011. In the application for condonation of delay it is stated by the petitioner that copy of the same was released on 14.11.2011. Petitioner must have received the courier within 3-4 days. Thus, if the judgment was received on 18.11.2011, the ninety days period would expire on or before 16.03.2012. 9. As per record, the revision petition has been filed on 09.04.2012. Thus, admittedly, there was a delay of 57 days and not as 24 days as alleged by the petitioner in his application as ninety days would expire on 16.02.2012 and not on 16.03.2012.. 10. The main ground on which condonation of delay has been sought is reproduced below: . It is submitted that in fact the case papers for filing the revision petition were couriered to the office of the counsel of the petitioner. Since, the father of the counsel for the petitioner is seriously ill due to cancer, he had to be in various hospitals. Though, it was decided between the counsel and the revision petitioner that the petition can be finalised after a meeting in Kerala, in view of the hospitalisation, they could not meet as planned, and thus consequential delay occurred in drafting the revision petition. 11. In the entire application, petitioner has not mentioned the name of the counsel, whose father was seriously ill. Nor it has been mentioned when the father of the counsel became ill. No medical record with regard to illness of the father of the previous counsel has been filed. Moreover the period during which the father of the counsel remained ill and hospitalised and from whom he got the treatment have nowhere been mentioned. The averments made regarding illness of the previous counsel father are absolutely vague. The story put forward by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay appears to be a ock and bull storywhich has no legs to stand. 12. It is well settled that ufficient causewith regard to condonation of delay, in each case is a question of fact. 13. The Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has laid down: 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 14. Accordingly, we find that there is no ufficient causeto condone the delay of 57 days in filing of the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis, is thus not maintainable is hereby dismissed. 15. Consequently, the present revision petition being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed.