This revision petition, which has been filed after a delay of 237 days, seeks to challenge the order dated 06.11.2009 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short, he HUDA - respondent no. 1 in this petition, against the order dated 17.08.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short, he District Forum partly allowing the complaint of the petitioner. 2. The complainant grievances before the District Forum was that the opposite parties/respondent failed to develop the necessary facilities in and around the plot of land which the petitioner purchased from the original allottee and which purchase was approved by the HUDA, vide allotment letter dated 27.08.2001. As a result, the complainant was constrained to surrender the said plot back to HUDA and accept the refund of the amount deposited by him. On consideration of the facts and evidence brought on record, the State Commission held that the petitioner/complainant had surrendered the plot and requested refund of the amount deposited by him because he was unable to pay the balance installments on account of financial difficulties. It is a clear finding of fact of the State Commission that this was the ground which the petitioner/complainant clearly mentioned in his application dated 28.11.2003 submitted to the HUDA. In this view of the matter, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the HUDA and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 3. I have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. As already observed, this revision petition has been filed with a delay of 237 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the following has been stated: . Thereafter, the petitioner took opinion of his advocate who had dealt with the case before the Honle State Commission. His counsel advised him to prefer a revision petition before this Honle Commission challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Honle State Commission. 4. That the records of the case got inadvertently misplaced in the house of the petitioner. The records of the case were searched thoroughly but in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner started reconstructing the records of the case by collecting the papers of the case from his earlier lawyers who had handled the matter before the learned District Forum and State Commission. Some of the documents such as the re-allotment letter and the letter seeking enhanced price were not available with the counsels in their record. Therefore, the same was to be taken from the records of the case before the learned Fora below. The process of getting the copy of the documents consumed some time because in the learned District Forum the searching of the case filed consumed sufficient time. 5. In the second week of September 2010, the petitioner contacted the present counsel with the available records of the case and discussed the matter. Some of the relevant documents including the copy of the complaint filed before the learned District Forum, Panipat which was necessary to be annexed with the petition were not available with the petitioner at that point of time. Accordingly, the counsel advised the petitioner to make available the missing documents at the earliest in view of the period of limitation. 6. The petitioner contacted his earlier counsel again in Panipat and went through the missing documents. The said documents were made available to the present counsel on 08.10.2010. 7. The complex question of law involved in the present case required serious research work and relevant case laws were thoroughly gone through before preparing the case. Some of the documents which was necessary to be annexed with the revision petition required fair typed copy. This exercise also consumed some time. 8. The matter also involved complex questions of facts and law. The entire case required to be understood properly factually and also in accordance with the law in this regard. It required interpretation of various sections under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for that a lot of research work had to be done. This process took some time 4. The verbose submissions in the aforesaid application notwithstanding, the fact which stands out is that the petitioner/complainant received a copy of the order of the State Commission on 16.11.2009 but could arrange to hand over the relevant papers to the learned counsel only on 08.10.2010. Nothing beyond this statement, which too is totally unsupported by any documentary evidence, has been said to explain this inordinate delay of 237 days in this case. 5. In this context, the law has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v B. S. Agricultural Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121]. On the point of limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, he Act the Apex Court has observed as under: 1. Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus: 4A. Limitation period. (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, hall not admit a complaintoccurring in section 24A is sort of legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 12. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. This view was relied upon/reiterated by the Apex Court itself in two more recent cases, viz., Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v National Insurance Co. & Another [(2009) 7 SCC 768] and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v Anita Sena Fernandes [(2011) 1 SCC 53]. Thus, the effect of the ruling is that in case of delay, unless a complainant/appellant/revisionist first overcame the bar of limitation by showing ufficient cause consideration of his complaint/appeal/ revision petition on merits would not be legally permissible. 7. As already noticed, the grounds set out by the petitioner to explain the delay in this case cannot and do not amount to ufficient causethat would adequately explain not filing this revision petition within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of the impugned order of the State Commission as per Regulation 14(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. 8. In any case, even on merits, the case of the petitioner/ complainant does not deserve any consideration, as is clear from a plain reading of the State Commission well-reasoned order. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine, with no order on costs.