The petitioner Authority being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the foras below has preferred this revision petition. 2. Relevant order of the District Forum, Kanpur which has been affirmed in delay reads as under ; nder complaint of the complainants is hereby allowed. The Balance Sheet which is enclosed with the affidavit of complainant No.2, Smt. Rani dated 3.7.2004 as annexure A is hereby confirmed. The opposite parties are hereby directed to adjust freehold charges of Rs.6,533/- and Misc. Charges of Rs.320/- from Rs.38,767.24 paid in excess by the complainants as per the Balance Sheet and refund the balance amount to the complainant within one month from this order and execute registered freehold sale deed in favour of the complainant after collecting stamp fee. Both letters dated 16.4.2003 and 10.9.2003 are hereby quashed. Opposite parties shall pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. The Balance Sheet Annex. A to the affidavit dated 3.7.2004 of complainant no.2 shall remain integral part of this order. In case the opposite parties fail to execute the Registry of the house in favour of the complainant and refund the money to the complainant within one month, they shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 15% on the aforesaid refundable amount . -3- 3. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of appeal with a delay of 68 days. The petitioner has moved an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition. The explanation given for the delay in para 2 of the application reads as under ; . That there is a delay of 68 days in filing the revision petition. That the impugned order was passed on 24.1.2013. A copy of the impugned order along with the letter of the Advocate informing the dismissal of the appeal was sent to the Department vide letter dated 30.1.2013 which was received on 4.2.2013. Vide noting dated 7.2.2013, the file was sent to the Law Department which vide letter dated 23.2.2013 forwarded the file to the concerned zone for necessary action. That after being processed at various levels the necessary permission was granted for filing the revision petition on 15.3.2013. That vide letter dated 21.3.2013 the file was sent to the office of the undersigned. The undersigned received the file in the month of April. 4. Counsel for petitioner has contended that the delay in filing the revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred because of bureaucratic delay in the moment of file to consider whether or not to challenge the impugned order. It has also contended that the petitioner has a very strong case on merit, therefore, rejection of request for condonation is gross injustice. -4- 5. Learned counsel for respondent on contrary has opposed the application for condonation of delay and stated that the explanation is not at all satisfactory and the petitioner has been grossly negligent in pursuing the matter. 6. Before adverting the submissions made by the respective parties, it would be useful to have a look on the law relating to condonation of delay. 7. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condoning the delay in each case, is a question of fact. 8. 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 9. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed ; -5- 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. 10. Honle Supreme Court in Anshul 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 11. We now proceed to consider the explanation for delay in filing of revision petition given by the petitioner in the light of the above settled position in law. The explanation given in our view, is highly unsatisfactory. The application of condonation of delay is vague and it does not spell out the details of the movement of file in the concerned department. The time taken in processing the file for revision at respective seats is not mentioned. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 68 days in filing of the revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore dismissed. Since, we have declined to condone the delay, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.