PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 499/2003 The Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kr. Dwivedi & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal partly, modified order of District Forum allowing complainant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 was allotted M.I.G.-2 house by OP/Respondent but after allotment from time to time price of the house was increased. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before District Forum with a prayer that OP may be directed to accept the previous price amount of Rs.1,98,000/- and not to charge any interest if the complainant deposits the entire amount in single instalment. OP resisted complaint. Learned District Forum allowed complaint to the extent of Complainant No. 1-Respondent No.1 and directed OP to calculate 15% interest on the amount deposited by the complainant till mid-November, 1999 and further awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for incomplete house and further directed not to charge interest on remaining amount of the allotted house. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and order of District Forum was modified and ordered that petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.5,63,333.72 cost of Flat No. 2 M.I.G. from the respondent, but petitioner is liable to pay interest @ 15% from the date of amount deposited by respondent till he receives possession of the house with basic amenities. Petitioner filed revision petition against the impugned order along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 on application for condonation of delay of 483 days in filing revision. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that delay may be condoned, as it occurred due to maternity leave of the concerned Clerk. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of delay; hence, application for condonation as well as revision petition may also be dismissed. 4. Application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner runs as under: . That the above revision is belated by 483 days due to the following reasons: (a) That the impugned judgment was passed on 1.2.2011 and copy of the same was received by the Counsel of the Petitioners on 03.02.2011. (b) That after receipt of certified copy, instructions were issued to file a Revision Petition, however, the concerned clerk proceeded on maternity leave and his charge was handed over to another clerk. (c) That both the clerks did not take any further action for filing the appeal, hence, delay has been caused. (d) That when the Respondent executed proceedings before the District Forum, then it reveal that petition has not been filed. (e) That a warning has been given to both the clerks who were responsible for not taking action to which delay has been caused. (f) That thereafter official was sent to Delhi along with record and Revision Petition was drafted and is being filed. 3. That delay so occasioned is bonafide, unintentional and liable to condoned in the interest of justice 5. Impugned order dated 1.2.2011 was received by Counsel for the petitioner on 3.2.2011 and this revision petition has been filed on 22.5.2012. The reason given in the application for condontion of delay is that the concerned Clerk proceeded on maternity leave and another Clerk, who took charge, did not take any further action and petitioner came to know about the order only when execution proceedings were filed before District Forum. It was further alleged that warning has been given to both the Clerks. Neither name of any Clerk has been mentioned in the application, nor warning letter has been placed on record. Even this fact has not been mentioned in the application, when the concerned Clerk proceeded on leave and when she returned back. As per office report, there is delay of 384 days in filing revision petition and apparently, no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay. 6. As there is inordinate delay of 384 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Honle Apex Court. 7. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; t is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. 8. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: e hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. 9. Honle Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; e have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 10. Honle Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: 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 Foras 11. Honle Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 384 days application for condonation of delay deserves rejection. Revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. 12. In the light of aforesaid judgements, we do not find it appropriate to condone the inordinate delay of 384 days. As application for condonation of delay has been rejected, revision petition being barred by time is liable to be dismissed. 13. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner being barred by limitation is dismissed with no order as to costs.