The dispute relates to 2013, we are in 2019. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners – developer co. and the respondents – complainants in person, and perused the material on record. 2. The District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 29.07.2015 allowed the complaint: ORDER 1. Respondent are directed to accept remaining amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the complainant and written and registered the sale deed of the disputed plots within 2 months from the date of Order. 2. Respondent are directed that, if it is not possible to obey the abovesaid No. 1 then to accept remaining amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the complainant and sold the adjacent plots having area of disputed plots in the surrounding area to the complainant within 2 months from the date of Order. 3. Respondent are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as a mental and physical harassment and amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the application to the complainant. (para 11 of the District Forum’s Order) (as per the translated copy furnished by the revisionist) [The (correct) remaining amount flowing from the previous paras of the District Forum’s Order is Rs. 1,25,000/-. Evidently, therefore, Rs. 1,20,000/- above is a typographical error.] 3. The State Commission had heard both sides, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 30.06.2017 dismissed the appeal: ORDER 1) Appeal is dismissed. 2) Order passed by the learned District Forum, Nashik in the consumer compliant no. 164/13 on 29.07.2015 is hereby confirmed. 3) No order as to costs. (para 14 of the State Commission’s Order) 4. This revision has been filed against the said Order dated 30.06.2017 of the State Commission. 5. To begin with, the application for condonation of delay was considered. 6. An application for condoning “delay of ____ days in filing of Review Petition” has been filed. The number of days has been left blank. The learned counsel for the developer co. submits during arguments that the delay is of 92 days. 7. Accordingly the revision has been filed with self-admitted delay of 92 days. The stated reasons for delay, as mentioned in para II of the application for condonation of delay, are as below: II. The Petitioner submits that there is delay in filing of the Revision Petition. The Petitioner submits that the said delay is unintentional and has occasioned due inadvertence and for the reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits that after the impugned order was passed the Petitioner sought legal advice in the matter and the Petitioner was advised to take up the matter in appeal before this Hon’ble Commission. Accordingly, the Petitioner made financial arrangements and collected all the relevant documents to be filed alongwith the Review Petition. After making all the arrangements, the Petitioner came down to Delhi and made arrangements for filing the Review Petition. However, due to communication gap, some delay has occasioned in filing of the Review Petition. The Petitioner submits that the said delay is unintentional and has occasioned due to inadvertence and for the reasons beyond the control of Petitioner. It would therefore be desirable in the interest of justice that the delay so occasioned be condoned and the matter be decided on merits. PRAYER The Petitioner, therefore prays that: A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of ____ days in filing of Review Petition against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in First Appeal No. A/15/1114. (para 2 of the application for condonation of delay) 8. The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The period of limitation to file revision petition is 90 days (Regulation 14(1)(i) of the Regulations 2005). This revision petition has been filed with (further) delay of 92 days. 9. It is noted that the stated reasons for delay, as enunciated in the application for condonation of delay, and as reproduced, verbatim, in toto, in para 7 above, (only) point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and causal attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the revision petition. 10. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible. 11. This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. The revision has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below (the operative portions of the District Forum’s and State Commission’s Orders have been quoted in paras 2 and 3 above). The subject memorandum of understanding (MoU) is admitted to by both sides. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the Order of the District Forum or of the State Commission on merit, this bench but does not find any reason visible to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. On the contrary, this bench finds the conduct of the developer co. to have a bad air. 12. The application for condonation of delay, being unconvincing and devoid of merit, is dismissed. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed on limitation. 13. Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution of its Order as per the law. 14. A copy of this Order be sent to the District Forum by the Registry within ten days. | 
