PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK There is a delay of 1617 days in filing the present revision petition. Petitioner was served and he was asked to remove the defects. He has sent reply. He has not filed the application for condonation of delay. In his reply, he gave the following explanation. “ i am shocked surprised and discouraged by the longl ist of defects given by the commission based on misconception of facts. I very humbly submit as follows:- 1. When my appeal was dismissed by n.c.d.r.c. illegally, I dropped the idea of filing an rp because in my opinion rp and review petitions are not suitable steps for a common man. 2. The copies of the orders of both the fora were attached with the intention that nothing has been concealed, if those become the cause of turning a complaint into an r.p. then I withdraw them. 3. The torrent was not a party in that complaint therefore the question of r.p. does not arise. 4 to 7. xxxxxxxxx”. The impugned order also shows that the appellant had neither filed the certified copy of the impugned order in appeal nor certified copy of the complaint. Consequently, the State Commission dismissed the appeal in default. Since the needful has not been done, therefore, the case is dismissed for non-prosecution. | 
