This order shall dispose of the above-captioned bunch of Revision Petitions. As the facts and the law point involved is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. We are taking the facts from Revision Petition No.3348/2012. 6 Petitioner Development Authority framed a scheme called 97(4). In that scheme development was already in progress by the registered co-operative housing societies constituted for the purposes of providing plots/housing accommodation to their members under the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Power to develop the plots by framing the scheme and bring development in accordance with the scheme, Resolution 9 was passed by the petitioner so that the development is in accordance with the scheme. Under the system the land is acquired under Section 56 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 (for short ‘Adhiniyam 1973) and the allotment was to be made to the entitled persons in accordance with Section 57 and the disposal rules. The land belonging to Mahatma Gandhi Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (R-2 herein) was also covered under the Scheme 97(4). In accordance with the provisions contained in Resolution 9, the land vested in the petitioner. Resolution 9 also made a provision of allotment of this land back to R-2 in consistence with the development made in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. It is that part of the allotment which is the bone of contention between the parties. Complainants claim to be the members of R-2 entitled to the allotment of the plots and registration of lease deeds on the strength of having paid the amount for the land and development as per the charges claimed by the petitioner Authority. 7 Complainant/respondent was allotted a plot. He paid a sum of Rs.82,633/- @ Rs.918.15 per sq.mtr. as demanded. Lease Deed was not executed by the petitioner. The Resolution, by which the plot was allotted to the respondent, was suspended by the Deputy registrar. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to take action for getting the lease deed executed in favour of the respondent along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which disposed of the same in the following manner:- “In so far as the Indore Development Authority is concerned, we find no impediment in carrying out the provisions of Resolution 9. In fact, the administrative orders of the Registrar is for making allotment according to seniority of the members as per the date the payments have been made by these individual members, and therefore we do not perceive any illegality in the order of the District Forum, Indore. The District Forum, Indore examine each case and on finding that allotment has already been made and payment has been received, given direction to execute lease deeds. We make it clear that in those cases where the payment is not complete, the Indore Development Authority may suspend allotment/lease deed of the plot in question 8 without being hindered by the administrative orders. However, this judgment will apply only after four months to enable the Registrar to finalize the list and in the meanwhile if the list is not finalized the Indore Development Authority may proceed to allotment/execute lease-deed as per the directions hereinabove contained. With the above directions all these appeals are disposed of. The cost awarded by the District Forum and the amount for mental agony is set aside.” Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed this appeal with a delayof 154 days. Before we proceed further, it may be mentioned here that the complainants/respondents, aggrieved against the underlined portion of the order of the State Commission, filed R.Ps No.646/2012 and other connected cases. According to them, the State Commission had erred in giving 4 months’ time to the Registrar to finalize the list. Revision Petitions were disposed of as infructuous on 5.7.2012 as the period of 4 months given to the Registrar to finalize the list had already lapsed. Petitioner has now filed this revision petition with a delay of 154 days, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, 9 no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken. The only reason given for condonation of delay is as under : “That the impugned order was passed on 24.12.2011 and the petitioner applied for the same on 6.1.2012 which was furnished to the lawyer of the petitioner on 7.1.2012 and same was sent by the lawyer of the petitioner to the petitioner’s office. After getting the copy of the judgment, legal implications of the impugned order were discussed in legal department of the petitioner. When they could not reach on a conclusion, then a legal opinion was sought from the local lawyer then the lawyer suggest that because of the directions to the petitioner to execute the lease deed without sorting out the dispute of seniority write a letter to the registrar then on 19.03.2012. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Registrar Cooperative Societies regarding the preparation of revised seniority list within 4 weeks, as per the order issued by the State Commission. The petitioner did not get any reply. True copy of the letters are annexed as Annexure P-1 (colly.) The petitioner was waiting to settlement of the issue of seniority, which was to be decided by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. When the Deputy Registrar could not decide the issue within 10 the stipulated time, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Commission in the present proceeding.” We are not satisfied with the cause shown. Conditional order passed by the State Commission attained finality on the lapse of 4 months given to the Registrar to finalize the list. Revision petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed as infructuous. Petitioner should have filed the revision petition within time. Plea taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay that it was waiting for settlement of the list by the Registrar, cannot be accepted. Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed 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 the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are as under: “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 11 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.” The delay of 154 days cannot be condoned. Condonation of delay and re-opening of the case would adversely affect the rights of the complainant/respondents whose revision petitions have already been dismissed as infructuous. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Intervention filed by the persons, who were not a party to the dispute, is dismissed. | 
