JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING The present revision petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 10.10.2019 of the State Commission, whereby allowing the appeal of respondent. The impugned Order had been passed by the State Commission in the appeal filed by the complainant/respondent against the Order of the District Forum dated 17.02.2018 whereby his complaint was dismissed. IA No.6130/2020 (Condonation of delay) 1. The present revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short “the Act”) 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed with a delay of 272 days and this I.A. has been moved seeking condonation of delay. In the application, the petitioner has made the averments depicting/explaining his inability to comply with the impugned order and also the delay in complying the impugned order. The averments also show that due to non-compliance of the impugned order. The execution petition was filed by the respondent and warrants had been issued against the petitioner as well. He is on bail in the execution petition. There is not a single averment in the application showing the cause or explaining the delay, in filing the present revision petition. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in filing the revision petition had occurred due to lockdown due to the on-going Pandemic Covid-19 and, therefore, delay is not intentional. It is clear that no such averment has been made by the petitioner in the application. Moreover, the impugned order is dated 10.10.2019, the period of limitation for filing the revision petition had expired on expiry of 90 days i.e. in January, 2020 and at that time there was no Covid-19 Pandemic and no lockdown. 3. It is a settled preposition of law that the party to the delay is required to show reasonable and equitable grounds for such delay and the courts/commissions cannot ignore the provision of law only because non-condonation of the delay is going to cause inconvenience to a particular party. Sufficient causes of such nature which prevented the parties from filing the Revision Petition/Appeal within the period of limitation are required to be shown. Parties are also required to show that it had been acting diligently and remained active and the delay had occurred for the reasons which were beyond their control. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown. The Apex Court has held as under: “12. 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.” 4. It is also settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. If a person acts in lethargic manner and continues sitting over the file and takes long time for making up his mind for taking any legal recourse, such delay cannot be said to be sufficient and reasonable and are not the reasons which could not be avoided. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: "5. 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.” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also warned this Commission to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with application for condonation of delay. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. 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 Fora." 6. The delay can be condoned only by showing the reasons of such delay which are reasonable and justifiable. In view of the fact that there is not a single averment in the application explaining the reasons for delay in filing the present revision petition, no grounds for condonation of delay has been made out. It is apparent that the present revision petition has been filed after warrants had been issued against the petitioner in execution petition and while it is enjoying the of bail. The application has no merit and is dismissed. RP No.936 of 2020 Since the revision petitioner is barred by limitation, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost. | 
