Kanpur Development Authority, the petitioner herein has filed this revision petition challenging the order of the State Commission dated 25.07.2011 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum Kanpur was dismissed for non prosecution, as also the order dated 03.04.2013 of the State Commission whereby the miscellaneous application seeking recall of the order dated 25.07.2011 and restoration of the appeal was dismissed. 2. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, there is delay of 10 days whereas as per the calculation of the Registry, the delay is of 711 days. This mis-match between the calculation of the petitioner and the Registry has occurred because the petitioner has calculated the period of limitation w.e.f. order dated 03.04.2013 whereas the Registry has computed the period of limitation on the premise that the revision petition is against the order dated 25.07.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay caused in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and it occurred because of wrong legal advise under which the petitioner had filed application for recall of order dated 25.07.2011. Therefore, the period consumed from the date of filing of the application for recall of order till the date of its decision should be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Even if the above submission of the counsel for the petitioner is taken to be correct, then also, as per the allegation in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner Authority came to know about the dismissal of application for recall through the letter of the counsel Shri N.C.Upadhyay dated 11.04.2013. If we compute the period of limitation of 90 days for filing of revision petition commencing from 11.04.2013, the revision petition ought to have been filed latest by 10.07.2013. The petition, however, has been filed on 03.10.2013 i.e. after a delay of 85 days. 4. The explanation given for aforesaid delay is that the petitioner Authority on being informed by the counsel of the order dated 03.04.2013 sought for the records of the case and it was found that the records were with the Advocate. Thereafter, sometime was consumed to contact the concerned advocate and receive the papers. After that, the permission to prefer revision petition was sought and the counsel Shri N.C.Upadhyay was nominated in June 2013 to file the revision petition before the National Commission. The file was received by the Advocate on 17.07.2013. On going through the record, advocate sought for some more documents which were supplied during August 2013. Thereafter, sometime was consumed in drafting of the petition and translation of the documents. 5. We are not satisfied with the above explanation given for delay in filing of revision petition. Above explanation given for delay in filing of the revision petition is highly unsatisfactory. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condonation of delay in each case is quite different. The above explanation of delay appears to be a make belief story and is devoid of specific details about the date wise movement of file in the petitioner office. Day to day delay has not been explained. There is no justification of delay of 85 days. 6. 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. 7. In .B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has 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. 8. Honle Supreme Court in nshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)laid down 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. 9. In view of the above noted settled position of law on condonation and the reason stated above, application for condonation of delay is dismissed and as a consequence, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.