The petitioners being aggrieved of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhoulpur, Rajasthan (in short, he District Forum) awarding a sum of Rs.4,616/- including cost, preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (in short, he State Commission. The State Commission on 01.12.2010 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution regarding non-appearance on behalf of the petitioners. It is against the aforesaid dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 2. The revision petition has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with the delay of 877 days. Thus, the petitioners have filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of revision petition. The explanation for the delay in filing of revision petition is that the petitioners were not aware of the impugned order. It is contended that the petitioners were represented in the appeal by an advocate who did not inform about the fate of the appeal. When the petitioners approached its counsel in middle of 2013 to find out the status of appeal, the counsel informed the petitioners about the adverse order. Therefore the petitioners engaged another lawyer and filed this revision petition. 3. The above explanation given for delay in filing of revision petition is not satisfactory. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay would show that it is vague and bereft of details. Neither the name of the advocate who filed the appeal is given nor the exact date on which the petitioners came to know about the order of dismissal of appeal is given. Even the affidavit of the concerned advocate in support of the allegation has not been filed. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the explanation for delay. Even if, the allegations given in the application for condonation of delay are accepted, then also the petitioner after filing of the appeal slept over the matter for a period of almost 2years and did not bother to find out about the progress of appeal. This conduct on the part of the petitioners is gross negligent which cannot be condoned. 4. The Apex Court in a recent judgment of 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:- 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. 5. In view of the aforesaid observations, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. The application is dismissed. As a consequence, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.