This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula dated 13.8.2012 in appeals No.400/2009 and 486/2009 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner Company against the order of the District Forum, Panchkula. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation of 90 days with the delay of 166 days as per the petitioner and 153 days as per the period computed by the Registry. The petitioner, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay. Learned Shri P.K. Seth, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of the revision petition was unintentional and the reason for the delay caused are detailed in paras 2 to 4 of the application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the petitioner all through has been pursuing the matter diligently and if the delay is not condoned, it will cause grave injustice to the petitioner. Learned Shri Kunwar Yuvran Singh, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has opposed the application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the explanation for delay in the application is highly vague and unsatisfactory. He has further contended that the petitioner by resorting to this revision petition against concurrent finding of the Foras below is trying to delay the fruits of the judgment of the Foras below to the complainant. We have considered the rival contentions. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. The petitioner in order to succeed of application has to explain each and every day of delay to the satisfaction of the Court. 3. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; 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. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed ; 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. Honle Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down that; 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 context of the above enunciated legal position we now proceed to look into the explanation given by the petitioner in paras 2 to 4 of the application which are reproduced thus: - hat the petitioner is maintaining a panel of Advocates for conducting the cases of all its offices situated in India and as per the understanding between the Petitioner with their panel Advocates, they are supposed to send their legal opinion without any delay on the merits of the judgment as and when it is passed in any of the cases which are being handled by the concerned panel Advocate. That in this case, since the Advocate has not forwarded his legal comments on the order, as per the procedure, he was requested to send his legal comments on the order passed by the learned Tribunal and upon receipt of the legal opinion of the Advocate for filing Revision Petition, immediate thereafter the concerned office of the Petitioner, forwarded the papers to one of their panel Advocates at Delhi for filing Revision Petition without any further delay. That the Advocate thereafter prepared the Revision Petition and forwarded the same for the signatures of the Petitioner Bank and immediately thereafter, the Revision Petition was filed in the Registry of Honle Commission. Above noted explanation for delay is highly vague and unsatisfactory. Petitioner is trying the shift the blame on the Advocate concerned. It is not spelt out when the matter was sent to the Advocate concerned for his legal opinion and when legal opinion was received. Even the name of the concerned Advocate has not been discharged nor the application is supported by the affidavit of the Advocate. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to condone the delay. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case. On perusal of record, we find that the District Forum has allowed the complaint by a well reasoned order, which has been confirmed by the State Commission in appeal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact written by the foras below. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the discussion above, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.