JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. He prays for another adjournment, which is declined. 2. The revision petition was filed as back as in May, 2013. Almost a year has elapsed. There is delay of 295 days in filing the revision petition before this Commission. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been sought to be condoned on the following grounds: “2. It is stated that the petitioner the company engaged the counsel before the State Commission to represent the case. However, the counsel not appeared on the date of hearing not informed about the case to the petitioner company. After a consideration delay the petitioner enquired about the case. After enquiring it was informed that the matter has been dismissed in default. Thereafter the company contacted present dealing counsel to take necessary action and challenge the impugned order dated 23.4.2012 before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. In view of this a considerable delay has been occurred in filing the present revision petition. The delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate but beyond the control of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has delayed the case on the ground that the documents are in Marathi. These are to be translated. He is seeking adjournment after adjournment without coming to the main point. However, there is huge delay in filing the present revision petition. Orally, it is stated that respondent had also expired. It is not understood what has to do with the respondent. However, the case is hopelessly barred by time. Day to day delay has not been explained. 4. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. 5. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was observed that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed. 6. In Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor did he send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay. 7. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se, negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. Again, this case is hopelessly barred by time in view of law laid down 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, and Bikram Dass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221. 8. The revision petition is dismissed as barred by time. | 
