Petitioner No.2 has tendered authority letter issued by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 which is taken on record. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order of the Fora below with following prayers: - e, appellants request and pray Hon. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that: - 1) The Additional District Forum order dt. 29.08.2007 may be set aside and order of the Forum to execute the order passed at Sr.No.2 and 4 of its order dt. 05.05.2003 till order is fully complied. 2) Necessary compensation & cost shall be granted due to harassment in the interest of justice. The revision petition was filed on 2.11.2012. Since the order under challenge is dated 29.8.2007 it is obvious that the revision petition has been filed with inordinate delay of more than five years. The petitioners have not filed a separate application for condonation of delay. However, in the last but one paragraph of the revision petition the petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay, which is reproduced thus: - n case any delay is noticed by this Hon. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we request to condone the delay which caused to due old ailing father & his subsequent death & consequent rituals. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. The petitioners were prevented from filing the revision petition within prescribed period of limitation as they were attending to their ailing father who ultimately died. It is submitted that if the delay is not condoned, a grave injustice would be caused to the petitioners. It is well settled that if a petition is filed after the expiry of period of limitation the petitioner in order to condone the delay has to explain each and every day of delay satisfactorily. The above explanation of the petitioners for inordinate delay of more than five years in filing of revision petition is highly unsatisfactory. The petitioners have taken a vague plea to justify the delay. They have not mentioned the details of ailments suffered by their father or the period of those ailments. Petitioners have also not given the dates on which their father expired. No medical certificate has been filed to substantiate the allegation that the father of the petitioners was suffering from some serious ailment. In view of this, I am not inclined to accept the explanation for condonation of delay. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed thus e 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. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Honle Supreme Court while dealing with question of delay has observed thus: t 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. Similar view has been taken by this Commission in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authoriy Vs. Sukhbir Singh Malik 2013 (1) CPR 417 (NC) as also in the case of Sapna Jain Vs. Jaipal Singh reported in 2013 (1) CPR 322 (NC) and in the case of Principal, National Pre-University College, Basavanagudi, Bangalore & Anr. Vs. N.Raghunath Rao reported in 2011 (4) CPR 181 (NC). Honle Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down as follows: - t 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 In the light of the above judgments, now I proceed to consider the explanation given by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition. The explanation given by the petitioners for inordinate delay of more than five years in filing of the revision petition is highly unsatisfactory. In the light of the discussion above and the law annunciated as above, I find no reason to condone the delay of more than five years in filing of the revision petition. The request for condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed being hopelessly barred by limitation.