PRONOUNCED ON 7th MARCH, 2014 O R D E R JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. There is delay of 99 days in filing this revision petition. The delay has been explained in the application filed by him, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in para Nos. 2 & 3 of the application, as under :- . That the main file was misplaced in the office of the counsel by the clerk of the counsel hence the same could not be filed in time. 3. That now on 30.07.2013, the main file has fortunately been traced out in the office by the clerk of the counsel, which was inadvertently placed in another file of some other case titled, ai Kishan Vs. Amit pending in the court of Sh.Sunil Chaudhary, CJ, Delhi. The petitioner has sufficient cause for condonation of delay and will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money in case the delay is not condoned 2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr.Manoj Kumar, the Clerk of Mr.Anil Goel, the Advocate. 3. We are of the considered view that this application should be read in conjunction with the impugned order. The impugned order dismissing the complaint, in default is reproduced, as follows:- iare Lal Garg, Presiding Member The present appeal was filed on 15.11.2011. None was present on behalf of the appellant on 25.07.2012 & 10.10.2012. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. It appears that neither the appellant nor the counsel for the appellant is interested to pursue the appeal. Dismissed for want of prosecution 4. It, therefore, appears that from 15.11.2011, the appeal is pending and the petitioner did not attend the Commission. The counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the orders dated 25.07.2012 and 10.12.2012, which mention that the case was adjourned due to heavy pendency. 5. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. About three yearshave elapsed when the First Appeal was filed. The petitioner should have appeared before the State Commission on 25.07.2012 and 10.12.2012 and made a prayer to the State Commission to hear the arguments. It is also clear that, on 04.01.2013, when the case was dismissed in default, nobody appeared. No explanation for the same is forthcoming. The Court has not to function in accordance with the whims and fancies of the litigant(s). When the case was dismissed in default, warning bells should have rung, but the petitioner, after receipt of the copy of the order on 25.01.2013, filed this revision petition on 02.08.2013. For a period of more than six months, the counsel could not trace the file. This is a frivolous story. Even if the file was lost, the counsel should have got prepared another file, which, in emergent period, can be prepared in a day, or two. 6. This clearly goes to show that the Advocate, Sh.Anil Goel, is negligent. He should have filed the revision petition immediately. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92. 7. There is no evidence on record that the litigant/petitioner has taken any action against his own Advocate. This must be borne in mind that this is a case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is a delay of about three years. The purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stands defeated. In a case pertaining to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Honle Supreme Court was pleased to hold, in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), t 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 Fora 8. Similar view was taken in (1) R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, (2) Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, (3) Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, (4) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 9. In view of the foregoing, the revision petition is barred by time and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.