PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 493 of 2012 The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed 2. Along with Revision Petition, petitioner has filed application for condonation of 334 days delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 4. Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the petitioner application for condonation of delay runs as under: . That there is 334 days delay in filing of the revision petition from the date of receipt of the revised order i.e. 29.8.2012. 3. That due to the shifting of the advocate office, the file was misplaced and it could not be located, which resulted in delay in filing the revision petition within limitation In this application for condonation of delay, petitioner has not even mentioned when Advocate shifted office, when file was traced and when revision petition was prepared. There is inordinate delay of 334 days in filing revision petition and no reasonable explanation has been given by the petitioner for condonation of inordinate delay of 334 days. 5. As there is inordinate delay of 334 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Honle Apex Court. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 10. 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 334 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed. 11. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.