JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. There is delay of 102 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition. The delay has been explained in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay. Paras 2, 3 and 4 read as under: “2. That the petitioner/O.P. Bank branch could get the copy of the order passed by the Ld. A. P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in November 2011 when the same was sent to the Zonal Office, Tirupati. As the decision of filing the appeal was to be taken, the matter was referred to Head Office from wherein the matter was thoroughly discussed and a legal opinion was sought as to the feasibility of filing a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission at New Delhi. 3. Further, the repercussion of not filing this revision petition were discussed at the Zonal office level. Though, the amount involved is a nominal amount and the expenditure involved in filing the appeal would have been much more for the far reaching consequences of the decision of the Ld. Commission and forum on relying upon the photocopies of the counterfoils, were discussed. The entire process was bound to take considerable time as the branch is situated in Kadapa, a district town, the controlling zonal office is situated in Tirupati and the Head Office is situated in Hyderabad. 4. That the counsel also had to discuss the matter thoroughly for finding out the feasibility of a revision wherein the forum as well as the State Commission had given concurrent findings as this aspect also took considerable time.” (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that this is a peculiar case and it should be decided on merits. He further submits that the fora below passed an order on the basis of a photostat copy of counter foil of the deposit receipt. 3. We see no merits in his arguments. To top it all, the case is hopelessly barred by time. The petitioner has submitted that he received a copy in November, 2011, but that is not true. We have perused the order of the State Commission dated 15.9.2011. It was pronounced in the open court in presence of the counsel for the appellant-Bank. The limitation started on that very day. The Limitation Act is a special Act, which prescribes its own limitation. If the delays are made in order to gain time with mala fide intention, the very purpose of the Act shall stand defeated. There is only departmental and procedural delay, which, according to the Apex Court is not a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This view finds force from the following authorities. 4. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold: “13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 5. The same view was taken in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), in Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. 7. Furthermore, the petitioner submits that the case involves only a small amount i.e.Rs.50,000/-. The reasons explained in para 3 of the condonation application reveal that for a nominal amount the petitioner bank has to spend more amount than what is involved in this controversy. It is never disclosed what are the far reaching consequences. The application for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed. 10. Now we advert to the merits of this case. When the Photostat copies were being produced, the advocate should have raised an objection. He should have persuaded the fora to keep this point open. No application was moved in this context. No request for production of original or for cross examination of the witnesses was moved. No affidavit was filed that those are forged and fabricated documents. No effort was made to produce the original record maintained by the bank to depict that those were forged documents. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed as time barred as well as on merits. | 
