PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 74/2006 – Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Manoj Sharma by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and OP resisted complaint. Learned District Forum vide order dated 2.9.2005 allowed complaint partly and OP was directed to execute sale deed in favour of complainant subject to depositing entire cost of the plot within 30 days and it was further directed to pay 16% p.a. interest on the deposited amount till the date of registry. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order as barred by limitation as well for non-depositing statutory amount against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay of 35 days and submitted that on account of translation of documents in Hindi, delay occurred. As there is delay of only 35 days in filing revision petition, delay is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in not condoning delay in filing appeal and not giving time for depositing statutory amount; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding appeal on merits. On the other hand leaned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay before State Commission and paragraph 2 of the application runs as under: “That the delay is due to the fact that the matter was send for approval of the statutory authority and papers of the file was not available and after getting approval the paper were arranged and matter was send to the learned counsel for filling of appeal”. Admittedly, petitioner filed appeal after 68 days before the State Commission and in aforesaid paragraph 2 of the application, petitioner has not mentioned when file was sent for approval of the statutory authority and when approval was accorded and when documents were made available for filing appeal. No explanation at all has been given by the petitioner for condonation of delay in the application and in such circumstances, learned State Commission rightly dismissed application for condonation of delay. In the light of following judgments - (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 – Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. delay cannot be condoned unless there is satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay. 7. Not only this, appeal was filed on 9.1.2006 without depositing requisite statutory amount for filing appeal and even after lapse of 8 years, petitioner could not deposit statutory amount for filing appeal. In such circumstances, learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal for non-depositing statutory amount with the State Commission. Learned State Commission was not required to ask petitioner to deposit statutory amount. It was obligatory on the part of petitioner itself to deposit statutory amount at the time of filing appeal or to request for grant of time for depositing amount. It is very strange that in 8 years’ period, statutory amount could not be deposited by the petitioner with the State Commission and leaned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal on this ground also. 8. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. ..…………………………… ( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER | 
