This revision petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (for short he Insurance Company, with an application for condonation of delay of 742 days over and above the statutory period of 90 days as prescribed in Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (for short he Regulations. However, as per Regulation 14(2) a consumer forum may condone the delay in filing the petition if it is satisfied that a sufficient cause for the delay is made out. In the instant case, in the application, praying for condonation of the said delay, the explanation furnished is that although the State Commission had passed certain orders between the period from 5th August, 2011 to 17th November, 2011, but finally disposed of the appeals with the following observations: ince the whole controversy is now to be decided by the Honle Commission and necessary directions also to be issued accordingly which may govern all the matters decided by the District Forum under similar circumstances, we deem it just and proper to dispose off the present appeals with the direction that the impugned order passed by the District Forum shall be covered by the ultimate decision of the National Commission in the present controversy and directions if any shall also stand modified accordingly. Till the whole controversy is decided by the National Commission, the execution proceedings if any shall stand stayed till final decision of the National Commission. In case the matter is remanded back to this Commission by the National Commission, the appellants may file necessary application for revival of the present appeal at appropriate stage. Therefore, in view of a strange and unusual procedure followed by the State Commission, where without recording any finding on merits of the appeals, it had granted liberty to the Insurance Company to apply for revival of their appeals in case Revision Petitions No. 464 to 534 of 2011 pending before this Commission were remanded back or disposed of, the Insurnace Company thought it appropriate to await the decision in the said cases. It is stated that since the said Revision Petitions were dismissed by this Commission only on 16th August, 2013, the Insurance Company decided to file the present petitions and, therefore, there is no delay in filing the same. It is pleaded that there was no intentional delay on the part of the petitioner and whatever delay has been caused, it is due to the bonafide reasons mentioned above. We have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Relying on the decision of the Honle Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157], wherein it has been explained as to how the expression ufficient causeis to be construed with reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, learned counsel submits that since delay in the matter was on account of a bonafide understanding of the impugned orders, it deserves to be condoned. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. We fail to appreciate that having challenged the earlier orders passed by the State Commission, which have been referred to and relied upon in the impugned orders, instead of filing petitions against these orders and getting them clubbed with the pending cases, the Insurance Company though it advisable to await the decision in earlier petitions. Furthermore, Insurance Company Special Leave Petitions against the orders of this Commission having been dismissed by the Honle Supreme Court in limine vide orders dated 28th October, 2013, because of the smallness of the claims involved, it was highly improper on their part to file these petitions and drag the poor farmers to the Court after a lapse of over two years to somehow deny to them small claims under the Weather Based Insurance Scheme. In Maniben Devraj Shah (supra), while advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications praying for condonation of delay, the Supreme Court has also observed that the Courts cannot be oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. In the present case, the insurance claim of the insured/farmers pertain to the year 2008. We are convinced that the Insurance Company was not only negligent in dealing with the matter, the aforenoted cause shown for condonation of delay is also not bonafide. In our view, the Insurance Company has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 742 days. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.