JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, Naresh Kumar Rawat. The said complaint was decided in favour of the complainant on 22.09.2004. The District Forum also directed as follows:- omplaint allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to grant the aforementioned exemptions to the complainant and, while considering that the complainant has already deposited full payment against the house, execute Freehold Sale Deed with Registry of the House in favour of the complainant and handover possession thereof to him within three months. Each party will bear its own costs 2. Aggrieved by that order, appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in default by delivering the following order:- he case called out, none responds for the parties even though the cause-list of date has been shown on internet through the Commissions website. The appellantscounsel Sri Arvind Kumar is not available. It appears that the appellant is not now interested in proceeding with this appeal. Let it be dismissal in default and for want of prosecution 3. Application for restoration was moved which was still pending before the State Commission. In the meanwhile, the counsel for the petitioner came to know about the Apex court celebrated judgment reported in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 541. Even then, no effort was made by the petitioner to withdraw that application. Instead, he filed the present revision petition before this Commission, which is delayed by 196 days. The petitioner has explained the delay in Para 3 of his application for delay which is reduced as follows:- . That due to the inadvertence of the counsel of the petitioner before the Honle State Commission no one appeared and hence the case was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that the above mentioned case, had originally been filed by Sri Arvind Kumar, Advocate who did not appear before the Honle State Commission on the date fixed for hearing when it was listed on 29.07.2011. The fact of dismissal of the Appeal due to non-prosecution was also not communicated to the Petitioner 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the above said facts. 5. It is clear that the petitioner has advanced a fragile excuse for getting the delay condoned. We have perused the record. The Registry has reported that from the date of impugned order and date of cause of action, there was delay of 466 days. It further mentions that the petitioner took 179 days in filing this revision petition. It is difficult to fathom why the petitioner, after knowing that it case was dismissed in default, took 179 days in obtaining the certified copy. The collision of the court officials of the State Commission cannot be ruled out. This is a very serious matter. We, therefore, direct the Registrar of the State Commission to explain why there was so much delay of 179 days in obtaining the certified copy. The certified copy should have been obtained within a week. The explanation be sent, within one month of the receipt of this order. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the State Commission. 6. This must be borne in mind that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down its own law under the Limitation Act. This a Special Act and its provisions should be strictly followed. The following authorities neatly dovetail with the facts of the above said case. 7. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that it 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. 8. In Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex court on 08.07.2010, it was held: he party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] 9. In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that 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 Section 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 bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry 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. 10. Recently the Apex court in the Office of the Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.02.2012, in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012, arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011, was pleased to observe: 3. 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 11. In another case titled ahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr.[Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012] the Bench of this Commission headed by Honle Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, has rejected the explanation that the file was moving from table-to-table, to get the permission to file that appeal. It was further held that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and in case of some expert evidence is required to be led then within 150 days. The said Bench dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was delayed by 104 days. 12. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer office and enquired about the case, especially when the case was regarding deposit of arrears of rent. The statute also prescribes a time bound programme regarding the deposit to be made. 13. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was laid down that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed. 14. In Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor has he did sent any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay. 15. 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. 16. It is the duty of the litigant to post him with the day-to-day proceedings. The delay of 179 days or 466 days is a huge delay. The case of the petitioner is hopelessly barred by time. Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition on the above said grounds.