According to the petitioner, there is a delay of 35 days. He has explained the grounds of delay in application for condonation of delay, which run as under:- t is submitted that the counsel received the free certified copy of the impugned order in the 2nd week of June 2009 and sent the same to the petitioner. After receipt of order, the petitioner contacted the local counsel and sought his help. The counsel informed that she has to approach this Honle Commission. After collecting the papers from the counsel at Hyderabad and arranging funds, during the second week of September, she contacted the counsel at Delhi and sent the papers. But as counsel was out of station during the Dashara vacation, the papers were not delivered to him. The counsel received the papers in the First week of October 2009, who after going through the papers sought some clarification about the cheque and other account number details. Thereafter, the counsel prepared the draft revision petition and sent the same to the petitioner local counsel and once again requested the counsel to send other required papers enabling him to file along with the revision petition. Under these circumstances, it took some considerable time for collecting the papers which caused the delay. On merits, the petitioner has got a very good case. If this application is not allowed the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and hardship, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent, if the Honle Commission allows this application and considered the petition on merits. 2. However, we are not satisfied with the explanation put forward by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the order passed by the State Commission was announced in the open Court in presence of both the counsel. The order came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 13.5.2009. Consequently, there is a delay of 65 days in filing the revision petition. 3. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this petition. Permission was granted. 4. However, later on, Ms. Radha, counsel for the petitioner appeared and prayed that the matter be decided on delay as well as on merits. 5. We are not satisfied with this lame excuse. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The petitioner set-up a false plea that he received free certified copy of impugned order. The record goes to show that the arguments were heard by the State Commission and oral order was passed on 13.05.2009 itself, in the presence of both the counsel, namely; Sri M.V. Kini & Co. and Sri G. Ramgopal. The time started running for limitation purposes from the same day. Again, the name of the counsel is not mentioned in the explanation. His affidavit did not see the light of the day. Such like story can be created at any time. This view finds support from the following various authorities. 6. n Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held 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 7. Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bahavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), and in Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361. 8. Again, it is well-settled that qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92. 9. The case is barred by time, particularly, when the case on merits is also very weak. 10. Let us now revert to the merits of the case. Mrs. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, the complainant and her husband are the joint holders of account SBA No.3349 with the opposite party / respondent bank since the year 1996. The complainant presented a cheque dated 31.05.2003 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- with the respondent Bank on 10.11.2003 but mentioned a wrong account number, i.e., 5025 on the pay-in-slip. The complainant says that they approached the bank several times, but could not get proper reply. Thereafter, a complaint was filed with the District Forum with the prayer that the respondent bank be directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. to the complainant and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and loss of business. The District Forum accepted the complaint and granted a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from 10.11.2003 till realization. A compensation of Rs.6,000/- besides cost of Rs.1000/- was also awarded. Being aggrieved, OP Bank preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 11. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. She submits that in case, the bank had received account number 5025 wrongly; it should have returned the cheque immediately to the complainant. They were illegally withholding the cheque and should have intimated the complainant immediately. 12. All these arguments lack conviction. The case of the OP Bank is crystal clear. It transpired on verification that, as a matter of fact, account no. 5025 did not belong to T. Vijaya Lakshmi. The discrepancy could not be communicated to the respondent, because of wrong account number which, did not disclose the address of the complainant. 13. The complainant and her husband approached the bank 23 days, thereafter. On being shown the challan, the complainant in connivance with her husband corrected the account no. to 3349 by chanign the account number noted earlier in the challan. The complainant also corrected the date 19.11.2003 to 10.11.2003, which did not contain any attestation. It also came to light that, as a matter of fact, the correct date of the cheque was 1.04.2003 which was altered as 31.05.2003. The complainant met the Bank in December 2003, when 6 months had already elapsed. The cheque could not have been presented after the period of six months; is a well-known fact. The State Commission also came to the following conclusion:- hen the correction which is not authorized was made in regard to the date of the cheque, the appellant bank cannot be found fault with more particularly, as the A/c number was stated to be a wrong A/c number in the pay-in-slip and these facts conclusively prove that the respondent had made unauthorized corrections in the cheque and in the pay-in-slip presented to the appellant bank and in the circumstances we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The finding of the District forum that the appellant bank was at fault in not taking criminal action against the respondent for unauthorized correction in the cheque and in the pay-in-slip is not sustainable. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits with no order as to costs.