JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. 2. There is delay of 249 days in filing the instant revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay wherein the delay has been explained in paras 5, 6 and 7, which are reproduced as under: “5. That for the opinion for filing the Revision Petition, the learned Advocate for the petitioners told the Petitioners that he would consult the case with some Senior Advocates and then let the Petitioners know of the same. 6. That therefore, the Petitioners were bona fide waiting for the opinion for some time till May, 2013, and when again contacted the learned Advocate as the limitation was expired, he was told that it had escaped his mind. He therefore, thereafter on contacting the Senior Advocates opined that it is a fit case for filing the Revision Petition as the State Commission without appreciating the evidence and other relevant papers has rendered the Judgment and there is no deficiency on the part of the Petitioners herein. 7. That the present Counsel was contacted in April, 2013 itself; when the papers were handed over to him and on going through the papers, the present Counsel advised the petitioner to obtain the certified copy of the impugned order, accordingly the petitioner applied for certified copy of the impugned on 29.07.2013 and after receiving the same personally visited the Counsel at Delhi and handed over it in the second week of August, 2013 thereafter the Counsel for the petitioner prepared the Revision Petition and now the same is being filed with this application for condonation of delay.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has explained the delay. We are not satisfied with the contention, putting the blame on the advocate, that too, in his absence and while hiding the name of the advocate, what to talk of his affidavit. It clearly goes to show negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner. There is delay of 249 plus 90 days. It is surprising to note that the petitioner has been pondering over the question whether the revision petition should be filed for a period of 349 days. It must be borne in mind that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisages a summary procedure and the time for disposal of complaint, appeal or revision petition are fixed by the Act itself. 4. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. 5. Similar view was taken in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845. 6. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay. Day to day delay was also not explained. Moreover, the Apex Court has time and again desires that the petition must be filed within time and where there is huge delay, the delay was not condoned. This view has been taken in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361; Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221. 8. The revision petition is hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
