PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 11.6.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1213 of 2011 SDO, UHBVNL Vs. Durga Devi by which, while allowing appeal partly, modified order of compensation allowed by District Forum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent had sugarcane crop and 500 poplar trees in his field. Electricity line was passing over the land of the complainant. Due to short circuit, on 2.6.2007, complainant sugarcane crop and 500 poplar trees were burnt. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/petitioner contested complaint and submitted that on 2.6.2007 from 7 AM to 5 PM, there was no supply of electricity and fire might have been caused due to some other reason and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,10,900/- with 6% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and amount of compensation was reduced to Rs.70,000/- by the impugned order against which, this revision petition along with application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage on application for condonation of delay. 4. Petitioner moved application for condonation of delay and alleged that impugned order was received by the petitioner in July, 2012 and petitioner received permission for filing revision petition in the end of July, 2012. Paragraph 3 of the application reads as under: hat after receiving the permission to file revision petition the petitioner met the present counsel in 2nd week of February, 2013 and delivered the case file for the purpose of filing the present revision petition before this Honle National Consumer Commission 5. Perusal of application reveals that petitioner has not given any reason for condonation of delay from end of July, 2012 to 2nd week of February, 2013. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not give any reason for not preparing and filing revision petition from the end of July, 2012 to 2nd week of February, 2013. Petitioner has not mentioned that how many days delay is to be condoned in the application, but from the office report, there is delay of 158 days in filing revision petition and no reason has been given for condonation of delay what to talk of satisfactory explanation of condonation of delay. 6. As there is inordinate delay of 158 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the judgment passed by the Honle Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (State Commission) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. 7. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, as revision petition is time barred, the same is dismissed as time barred at admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.