1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT of Delhi. In its order of 21.8.2012 the Commission has decided to proceed ex-parte against the OP.
2. The revision petition has been filed on 21.3.2013 and is hence delayed by four months. In the application seeking its condonation, it is stated that:-
“It is submitted that the limitation for filing the Petition has expired. The Hon’ble State Commission has proceeded the OP exparte vide order dated 21.08.2012. The counsel for the OP had appeared on 21.08.12 and had filed the reply to the complaint along with the reply to the interim application and had appeared before the Hon’ble Commission. The Commission proceeded the OP exparte despite the counsel present before the Commission and filed the reply. The Counsel was not aware of the said order and on the next date the counsel for the OP appeared and found that the matter has been adjourned for filing of the evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Counsel appeared before the Commission on 06.02.13 and was informed by the Commission that the OP was proceeded exparte as none appeared on 21.08.12 despite the fact that the reply has been filed. It is submitted that the OP came to know about the they being proceeded exparte only on 06.02.13 and due to said reason the Counsel for the Petitioner could not file the Petition within time as was unaware of the order and there happened to be a delay in filing the petition.”
3. From the above, it is clear that the knowledge of the impugned order came to the petitioner on the same day as his counsel had later in the day appeared before the Commission. In this context, Shri Rajat Bhardwaj, Advocate was heard on behalf of the revision petitioner on 12.4.2013. He informed that he had subsequently appeared before the Commission on the same day but did not recall the exact time of his appearance.
4. From the para of the condonation application cited above and the argument of the counsel, I find that they contain mutually contradictory claims. Thus, having first stated that counsel for the OP had appeared on 21.8.2012 (the date on which the impugned order was passed), it is claimed that the counsel was informed on 6.2.2013 that the OP had been proceeded ex-parte. It does not stand to reason how the counsel could appear after 12.30 p.m, when the Commission had already decided to proceed ex-parte against the OP and yet not have acquired knowledge of the order. The question of his appearance before 12.30 would not arise as in that event, there would have been no occasion for the ex-parte order to be passed.
5. It is therefore, clear that the knowledge of the impugned order came to counsel of the petitioner before the State Commission on 21.8.2012 itself and not on 6.2.2013, as claimed. The application for condonation has failed to offer any explanation for the resultant gap of four long months. It is the requirement of law that the party should not only have acted in a bona fide manner but should also have a reasonable explanation for the delay. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held:
“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention”.
6. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs. | 
