PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 331 of 2007 Kulamani Sahoo Vs. ICICI Bank by which, review application was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner filed complaint before District Forum with a prayer to direct respondent/OP to hand over his seized motor cycle in good running condition or pay price of the vehicle. Learned District Forum decided the matter on 18.2.2007 in Lok Adalat. Review application was dismissed by District Forum vide order dated 26.3.2007 against which, Appeal No. 331/2007 was filed before State Commission which was dismissed. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6826/2011 before High Court of Orissa and Honle High Court vide order dated 23.8.2011 directed State Commission to dispose of review petition on merits. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed review petition against which, another Writ Petition No. 2804/2012 was filed before Honle High Court which was withdrawn on 2.8.2012 with liberty to approach National Commission and in pursuance to that liberty, this revision petition was filed on 10.9.2013 along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 4. The petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay and mentioned that he was not aware about the order dated 2.8.2012 and he came to know in May, 2013 when he visited Counsel office and after that he applied for copy of impugned order which was issued on 23.7.2013. He further submitted that petition has been filed with a delay of 313 days which may be condoned as order passed by District Forum was based on fraud. 5. Admittedly, High Court dismissed writ petition as withdrawn on 2.8.2012 and this revision petition has been filed on 10.9.2013 almost after 13 months and no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay. Admittedly, petitioner came to know about the order of High Court in May, 2013; even then, about 4 months were taken in filing this revision petition. 6. As there was no reasonable explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 313 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. As application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed, revision petition filed by the petitioner being barred by limitation is bound to be dismissed. 8. As far merits of the case are concerned, State Commission order does not suffer from any infirmity, as State Commission has no power to review its order. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.