Heard. 2. Alongwith present, an application seeking condonation of delay of 117 days has also been filed. 3. Petitioner/Complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the Respondent/Opposite Party before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint, vide order dated 4.12.2007. 4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide impugned order dated 21.2.2011, allowed the appeal of the respondent, holding that petitioner had purchased the plot for commercial purposes to establish an industrial unit and the activities to be performed are of commercial nature to earn profit and to generate employment. 5. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition. 6. As far as the application for condonation of delay is concerned , the ground for which condonation of delay has been sought is reproduced as under; . That the Petitioner is based in Panchkula, Haryana and it took time for him to travel to New Delhi and arrange for the Counsel to represent him and file the present Revision Petition. As soon as the Counsel is engaged the relevant documents to be filed before this Commission were typed. However delay is caused in the whole process and filing of present Revision Petition. 7. Thus, as per the above ground, delay has occurred due to the reason that petitioner is based in Panchkula and it took time for him to travel to New Delhi and to arrange a counsel for filing the present petition. 8. Petitioner has nowhere stated as to on which date he travelled from Panchkula to New Delhi and on which date he arranged the counsel and what is the name of that counsel. Further, petitioner has nowhere stated in the application as on which date he received the free/certified copy of the impugned order. Application on all these material aspects, is absolutely silent. 9. It is well settled that ufficient causewith regard to condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact. 10. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; t 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. 11. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed; e 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 12. Honle Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; e have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 13. Now, Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ; 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 14. The observations made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to the petitioner. Accordingly, no sufficient ground is made out for condoning the long delay of 117 days. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. 16. Even on merits, the State Commission has rightly held that; ince the complainant had purchased the plot for commercial purposes to establish an industrial unit and the activities to be performed are of commercial in nature to earn profit and to generate employment, therefore, the complainant cannot be termed as a onsumerand as such the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not sustainable. Hence, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 17. We find no reason to disagree with the reasoning given by the State Commission. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by State Commission. Accordingly, present revision petition stand dismissed, being barred by limitation as well as on merits. 18. No order as to costs.