PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 143 days in filing this Revision Petition. The report given by the Registry that there is a delay of 125 days, is incorrect. The delay mentioned by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay that there is a delay of 234 days is also incorrect. We have perused the certified copy of the Gujarati Version of the order of the State Commission. It clearly goes to show that free copy was given to the petitioner on 05.07.2013 and the Revision Petition was filed before this Commission on 05.02.2014. After deducting 90 days, the delay comes to 143 days. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in para No. 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which runs as follows:- “3.xxxxx (a) That the certified copy of the impugned order dated 17.06.2013 was received by the Advocate for the Petitioner on 12-08-2013. (b) Thereafter, the said order was forwarded to the Petitioner by the Advocate and the said order was received by the Petitioner on 13.08.2013. (c) After the receipt of the order, the said order which was in vernacular (Gujarati) was inadvertently kept in a different file. (d) On 19-01-2014, the Petitioner received a notice from District Consumer Forum with respect to the execution petition filed by the Respondent and thereupon the Petitioner had traced out the copy of the impugned order and the said impugned order was forwarded to the legal department as well as to their lawyers for opinion. (e) Since the impugned order was in vernacular, the translation of the same also took time and by the time the Petitioner received advise, there happened to be a delay of 234 days.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that they have already deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- , atleast the Insurance Company should have been made a party in this case because it is only an agent of the Insurance Policy. 3. It is very surprising that few litigants come to know about the case when the execution petition is filed against them. We are not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegation that the copy was received on 12.08.2013 is totally false. The Gujarati version of the judgment clearly goes to show that the copy was furnished to the petitioner on 05.07.2013 itself. It is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that the documentary proof will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because it is a well-known axiom of Law that men may tell lies but the documents cannot. The gross negligence on the part of the petitioner further stands proved when it states that since the judgment was in Gujarati language it was inadvertently kept in a different file. It is clearly proved that the petitioner was not serious about the case. It shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner. If one is serious, it does not take time to get the Gujarati language document translated into English language. There is no sufficient ground for condonation of this delay. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court 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”. 5. Similar view was taken in “R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045. 5. The case is hopelessly barred by time and therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed. | 
