These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14.9.2011 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No.457/2011 and 458/2011, by which the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation. As both the revisions petitions are against the common order passed by the learned State Commission, both the revision petitions are decided by a single order. Complainant/respondent filed complaint against the petitioner/opp.party before the District Forum and the District Forum vide order dated 16.3.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the opp.party/petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.4,36,938/- in R.P. No.4096/2012 and Rs.4,15,326/- in R.P. No.4097/2012 along with interest @ 9% per annum; Rs.25,000/- compensation for deficiency and Rs.5,000/- as costs. Petitioner challenged these orders before the learned State Commission and the State Commission, vide impugned order, dismissed the appeals as barred by 119 days. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused the record. Petitioner has filed these revision petitions along with application for condonation of delay of 293 days and submitted that the delay occurred in seeking legal advice and approval of head-office. Petitioner has not given any cogent reason for condonation of inordinate delay of 293 days in filing the revision petitions. Learned State Commission also dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner on account of delay of 119 days. It appears that the petitioner is in the habit of filing the appeal or revision with inordinate delay and that too without any explanation and in such circumstances, delay in filing the revision petitions cannot be condoned and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court in (2010) 5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. And 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. Consequently, revision petitions, being barred by limitation, are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. | 
