This Revision Petition has been filed by S.J. Narayana Swamy who is the original complainant against the order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (tate -2- Commissionin short) in appeal No. 3812/2010 by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum at the stage of admission itself because of delay of 211 days in filing that appeal. 2. At the outset, it is observed that this revision petition has been filed with a delay of 337 days beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in question. We have perused the application in which it has been submitted that the delay in question was caused because after the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the State Commission on 09.09.2010, initially the petitioner approached the Honle High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition no. 16325 of 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.05.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner also approached the Apex Court by filing a SLP which was also dismissed on 23.04.2012. It is claimed by the petitioner that in the meanwhile he was suffering from hikangunyadisease from 19th May till September, 2011. No certificate in respect of the illness has, however, been submitted. In any case, considering the fact that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was later withdrawn by him and the SLP was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 23.04.2012 and yet he has filed this Revision Petition on 24.09.2012, it is clear that the petitioner has not been diligent in filing this revision petition within the time prescribed and has taken far too long to approach this Commission in the matter. Reasons for the -3- delay are not satisfactory. We, therefore, are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing this revision petition and it is liable for dismissal on this ground alone. However, we have looked into the merits as well. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was allotted a plot by the respondent/OP measuring 60 x 40 feet in Mysore for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- but the petitioner paid only Rs.1350/-. The respondent/OP asked the petitioner to pay the remaining amount with interest within 30 days from the date of communication and to obtain the sale deed failing which the amount of the initial deposit would be forfeited. Inspite of a reminder from the respondent, the petitioner was not in a position to pay the amount. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Government to consider his request for allotment and the Government wrote a letter to the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and to allot a site if the same had not been allotted to any other person. The respondent ordered re-allotment of the site already allotted to him earlier. According to the petitioner, the respondent did not give effect to its own order passed on 21.04.2006 and, therefore, alleged deficiency in service and filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 04.01.2010 holding that the petitioner could not establish any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and also that the complaint itself was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the petitioner -4- filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same at the stage of the admission as stated above. 4. We have heard Mr. C.B. Gurudev, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Both the District Forum and State Commission have held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation since according to the admitted position, the cause of action arose during the year 2006 whereas the complaint was filed on 04.11.2009. Keeping in view the settled legal position in this regard, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and hence do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The revision petition accordingly stands dismissed both on the ground of the delay in filing the revision petition and the complaint being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.