The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhatisgarh dated 15.04.2013 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal filed against the order of the District Forum and dismissed the consumer complaint of the petitioner, has preferred this revision petition. 2. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with the delay of 296 days as per the report of the Registry. According to the report, free copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner on 18.04.2013 and the consumer complaint has been filed on 09.05.2014 after 386 days of receipt of free copy whereas it should have been filed within 90 days of the receipt of the copy in terms of Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. 3. Petitioner alongwth revision petition has thus filed an application for condonation of delay being IA No.3186/2014. Counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. The petitioner had actually approached the advocate for filing the revision petition and handed over relevant documents. The documents were misplaced by the advocate but he did not intimate the petitioner and the petitioner was always under the impression that revision petition has been filed. However, subsequently he was informed by his lawyer that he could not file revision petition because he misplaced the documents during the shifting of his office, which were found much later in the beginning of March 2014. It is further contended that petitioner has a very good case on merits and if delay is not condoned, the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and injustice. 4. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on the law relating to condonation of delay. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant”. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed ; “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down that; “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”. 5. In the light of the above noted legal position, we do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner. The application for condonation of delay is vague. On perusal of application, we find that the period of delay in filing of revision petition has been left blank. It is well settled that in order to succeed on request for condonation of delay in filing of petition, the petitioner is required to explain each and every day of delay. When the petitioner is not even clear about the period of delay, his explanation for delay cannot be accepted. 6. Otherwise also, the explanation given for delay is detailed in para 3, which is reproduced thus: “That the petitioner could not file revision petition within the limitation as the lawyer engaged by him for this purpose had delayed in filing the same due to case documents getting misplaced. All throughout the petitioner was under the impression that the revision petition has been filed but only this year he was informed by his lawyer that the case documents were misplaced during shifting of lawyer’s office and were found in March beginning this year after a thorough search. In addition, the petitioner was pursuing the criminal complaint filed by him in this very case with the police and also involved in business expansion activities”. 7. On reading of the above, we find that neither the name of the lawyer who was engaged to file the revision petition is mentioned nor it is disclosed on which date said lawyer was engaged and documents were handed over to him. The contention of the petitioner that he was under the impression that revision petition must have been filed also appears to be a concocted story for the reason that revision petition was required to be filed under the signatures of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he signed the revision petition to be filed by the said lawyer. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay 296 days in filing of the revision petition. 8. In view of the above, we do not find merit in the application of condonation of delay. Application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the revision preferred by the petitioner is also dismissed as barred by limitation. | 
