JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER IA/20628/2018 This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing this Revision Petition. The number of days indicating the period of delay have not been disclosed in Para 3 or prayer of the application, and the space for mentioning those days has been left blank on the application supported by an Affidavit. 2. But the Registrar has noted that there is a delay of 125 days in filing the Revision Petition in which the order passed by the Ld. State Commission, Goa, in FA No. 79 of 2017 has been challenged. Such Order was passed on 26.3.2018 while the Revision Petition was filed on 5.11.2018. 3. In support of this application, the oral submission of Mr. Karan Mathur, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner was that husband of the Petitioner, Mrs. Nelly Rodrigues happens to be an Advocate himself, who was suffering from terminal illness at the relevant time, on account of which the Petitioner could not do the needful for the purpose of filing the Appeal in time. In addition, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that he had misplaced the documents in his office premises, which could be located only around 15.10.2018. 4. But the first oral submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner does not tally with the grounds mentioned in Para 4 of the application, which are set out as below- “4. At the outset, the Petitioner submits an unconditional apology for the delay. It is submitted that the Petitioner during that time after the impugned order, was diagnosed with spinal stenosis and therefore, was undergoing treatment for the same in Goa. Therefore, the Petitioner was able to send instructions and engage a counsel in New Delhi only after he was treated for the same. The Petitioner is ready to submit the medical documents in support of the application, if and when, the same will be required by the Hon’ble Commission.” 5. It is, thus, seen that there was no mention of the Petitioner’s husband being an Advocate or having fallen ill at the relevant time. Not even copies of the medical documents in support of the application were filed, and the Petitioner on the other hand, represented as if it was already assumed that the application would be allowed, and therefore was “ready to submit the medical documents if and when the same will be required by the Hon’ble Commission.” 6. This Commission is therefore of the view that the Petitioner has been unable to make out a convincing case of having sufficient cause to justify the delay in filing the Revision Petition. 7. In “Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746”; the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia – “9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “Sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.” 8. In “Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC), this Commission had observed as follows – “12………. we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)” has held that – “while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.” 9. In, “Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C ) Nos. 2054- 2055 of 2022, decided on 25.02.2022”, similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia – “5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of PopatBahiruGoverdhane V. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.” 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no justification to condone the delay of 125 days in fling this Revision Petition. Consequently, the IA No. 20628 of 2018 and Revision Petition No. 3091 of 2018 both stand dismissed. No orders as to costs. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. | 
