PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 40 of 2010 Central Bank of India Vs. Jagbir Singh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased a tractor HR 14B 3913 after taking loan from OP/petitioner. Complainant used to deposit the loan amount and OP was charging insurance premium amount for insurance of the tractor. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, insurance premium was charged till 25.5.2005, but thereafter, OP did not pay the insurance premium to Insurance Company. On account of accident, claim petition was filed against the complainant before MACT, Delhi involving aforesaid tractor and MACT Court awarded amount against the complainant which requires reimbursement by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that it was the duty of the complainant to get the vehicle insured and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and ordered that OP is liable for legal consequences in the absence of insurance of the vehicle. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage on application for condonation of delay and perused record. 4. Petitioner submitted in the application for condonation of delay that impugned order dated 18.10.2012 was dispatched by the State Commission on 19.11.2012 and was received by the petitioner on 26.11.2012. It was further submitted that the petitioner-bank is at very remote village and due to shortage of staff, matter was taken up with the Regional Office in the first week of December, 2012 and now the permission for filing the present revision has been received and immediately revision petition is filed. It was further submitted that petitioner-bank is a Nationalized Bank and process of obtaining permission has to go through various channels on account of which, delay of 230 days occurred, which may be condoned. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as permission had to be taken through various channels, delay of 230 days occurred in filing revision petition may be condoned. 5. Perusal of application clearly reveals that matter was taken up with the Regional Office at Rohtak in the first week of December, 2012, but in the application nowhere it has been mentioned that when permission for filing the revision petition was received. Revision petition has been filed on 11.10.2013, meaning thereby, after 10 months of taking the matter with the Regional Office. Petitioner has not mentioned in the application the dates and channels through which file proceeded for seeking permission for filing revision petition. 6. As there is inordinate delay of 230 days in filing revision petition, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Honle Apex Court. 7. In Ram Lal and Ors. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Honle Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: 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 11. Honle Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 230 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed. 12. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.