1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. There is a delay of 911 days in filing this revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in para No. 2 of his application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced here as under:- “2. It is submitted that certified copy of the Impugned Order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the State Commission signed by the registrar on 27.12.2010. The petitioner herein is a fisherman by profession and getting his livelihood from selling fish in the local market in the outskirts of Calicut, Kerala. The petitioner had no contacts and no money to engage a lawyer to approach this Hon’ble Commission against the impugned order. Thereafter, the Petitioner came in contact with a lawyer in Delhi through his friend. The petitioner immediately thereafter made effects to pursue this case in the month of July 2013 and on advise received Petitioner contacted the advocate at Delhi and papers were forwarded to Advocate at Delhi and arrangement were made for filing of the present Petition. After getting the entire documents the Advocate for the Petitioner drafted the Petition. It is submitted that the delay of 910 days is only on account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.” 2. It is surprising to note that some time before this case, the petitioner did not have money. He has now got the money and filed the present revision petitioner and has engaged a very senior Advocate Mr. Dileep, who appears in this Commission every now and then. We are not satisfied with these arguments. The following authorities neatly dovetail with the facts of this case. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It 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”. 4. Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 5. The Revision Petiton is hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
