JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. There was delay of 305 days in filing the revision petition before the State Commission for which the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. 2. The complaint was filed against Five Opposite Parties, where HDFC/Petitioner was arrayed as OP No.4 and Allahabad Bank, OP5, was proceeded against ex-parte, on 30.01.2013. Allahabad Bank/OP5 was permitted to join the proceedings on 10.07.2013. The ex-parte order was set aside by the District Forum on 22.07.2013 and OP 5 was permitted to file reply/evidence. However, OP5 did not file reply on three consecutive hearings. 3. The Petitioner/HDFC/OP4, filed an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings on 04.10.2013. It is also explained that the Bank which had earlier engaged a counsel had not properly represented and it had to appoint another counsel on 04.10.2013. As a matter of fact, the District Forum had issued notice for 30.01.2013. Service of the petitioner is admitted that he was served for 30.01.2013, however, due to communication gap, it was thought that some counsel must have been engaged by the controlling officer, but, inadvertently, due to communication gap, no counsel appeared on the date fixed and OP 4 was proceeded against ex-parte, on 30.01.2013. 4. The fact of pendency of the case came to the knowledge of the petitioner in May, 2013 and the Branch Manager of OP4 appeared before the District Forum on 15.05.2013. He was permitted to join the proceedings. Thereafter, a counsel was engaged and Power of Attorney was filed on 07.07.2013. That counsel, however, neither moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order nor communicated the result or about further proceedings in the matter. Thereafter, Sh. Ankush Gupta, took the charge of the Branch of OP4, on 25.07.2013 and thereafter, started verifying the factum with regard to all pending cases. He came to know of the dates as 14.08.2013, 06.09.2013 and 20.09.2013. The New Branch Manager of OP4 went to the District Forum on 20.09.2013, to assist the proceedings and inspected the record. It transpired that OP4 had already been proceeded against ex-parte, on 30.01.2013. Nobody was present on 22.07.2013. The instant application was moved for recalling order dated 22.07.2013. The District Forum dismissed the application vide order dated 30.12.2013. 5. The State Commission vide order dated 03.03.2014 dismissed the Revision petition as there was delay of 305 days in filing the revision petition against the order dated 30.01.2013. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He vehemently argued, time and again, that costs should be imposed and opportunity should be granted to file reply before the State Commission. 7. All these arguments are bereft of merit. The application moved by the petitioner is vague, evasive and leads the Commission nowhere. The names and affidavits of the previous counsel were withheld. There is not even an iota of evidence that the petitioner took any action against the earlier Advocates, who, represented it. There is no evidence that complaint was lodged by it against the Advocates before the Bar Council of India. It has become a fashion to put blame on the Advocates, that, too, in their absence and absence of their antecedents. Such like stories can be created at any time. This clearly goes to show that how lightly, one of the major Banks of this country, takes and pursues its cases. The petitioner is terribly amiss in discharging its duties. Day-to-day delay was never explained. Ex-parte means ex-parte and nobody is required to explain it to the petitioner Bank. Even a lay man can understand what is meant by ex-parte. The intention of the petitioner is to delay the case unnecessarily. There is a huge delay of 305 days which is never satisfactorily explained. Neither the three judges Bench authority reported in Dr.J.J.Merchant & Ors., Vs. Srinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) nor the authority reported in Kailash Vs.Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480, again by three judges Bench comes to the rescue of the petitioner. The case is hopelessly barred by time. 8. Also see the authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC, R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221, Ramlal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010 and other authorities which find reference in the order of the State Commission. 9. The orders dated 03.03.2014 and 30.01.2013 have attained finality and they cannot be set aside at this belated stage. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.