This revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, he Act has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 20-06-2013 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Hyderabad (for short, he State Commission in First Appeal No.288 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order of the District Forum, whereby the complaint filed by the Petitioner Association was dismissed on the ground that the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party (Builder) on account of defects in the flats purchased by the members of the Association was not substantiated. Both the fora below have ruled that vide memorandum of settlement, filed on 19-04-2009, all the reported problems had been addressed by the builder. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 166 days in filing the present revision petition. Application praying for condonation of delay has been filed along with the revision petition, in which the following explanation for the delay has been furnished: . It is submitted that the Ld. State Commission dismissed the petitioners appeal on 20-06-2013 and free certified copy of the order was dispatched on 01-07-2013. Counsel received the same in the second week of July, 2013. Thereafter, in the first week of September, the President of the petitioner association discussed with the local counsel and requested the counsel to do the needful. It is submitted that the President of the petitioner association is a Cine Artist and due to his pre-occupation and commitment he left for Malasia to attend his shooting assignment from 17-09-2013 to 29-09-2013. Thereafter, again he suddenly left for Bangalore in the first week of October, 2013 and stayed up to end of the month for his business meetings. In the first week of November, the President of the Association had been to Bombay for 10 days. Hence, he could not contact the counsel for approaching this Honle Commission. As he was only looking after the matter of other members of the association could not proceed further as they were not aware of the legal issues. During first week of December, 2013, the President met with the present counsel at Hyderabad and requested him to do the needful as the counsel expressed his helplessness due to his daughters marriage and stated that he will file the petition in the first week of January, 2014 only after reaching Delhi after Christmas vacation and reopening of this Honle Commission in the first week of January 2014. Thereafter, the counsel after going through the papers prepared the draft petition and sent it to the petitioner in the second week of January 2014. The petitioner after consulting the local advocate has finalized the petition in the second week of January 2014. As a film actor due to professional outdoor shootings, the President of the petitioner (Sri Satya Sai Enclave Flat Owners Welfare Association) was unable to peruse the matter. Under these circumstances, there is a delay in filing the present revision petition which is neither intentional nor deliberate. (Emphasis supplied) We are constrained to observe that the explanation is antithetical to the very object of fixing time limit for litigation, which is founded on public policy to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their remedies promptly. In our view, the stated pre-occupation of the President of the Association is no cause, much less a sufficient cause, to condone an inordinate delay of 166 days in filing the Revision Petition. Bearing in mind the observations of the Honle Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, to the effect that the entire object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes gets defeated if belated appeals and revision are entertained, we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 166 days in filing of this revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.