This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 103 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petitioner.  Consumer fora are required to decide the cases in a summary manner within given time frame.  Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where evidence is required to be taken.  Inordinate delay of 103 days in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.        The cause shown for the delay is that the petitioner is

-2-

financially not in a position to afford litigation as he is already involved in various disputes initiated by the Respondent No.1 and his father after being declared successful in the auction of the property; that considering the cost, distance and time involved in pursuing the matter further, petitioner could not afford to think of approaching the Hon’ble Commission as he is sole earner of the family.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condonation of delay.  Application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.

          We have heard counsel for the petitioner on merits as well.  Respondent had stood ‘Guarantee’ for someone.  As the amount was not paid, the house of respondent being the guarantee was put on sale by way of Auction by the bank.  Petitioner was the highest bidder and the sale was confirmed in his favour.  Respondent has challenged the sale confirmed in favour of the petitioner.  The dispute is still pending.

Respondent has remained in possession throughout.  Petitioner filed an application for transfer of electric connection in his name

-3-

which was done.  The State Commission has passed an order directing the respondent, who is in possession of the house, to pay the electricity bills for the electricity consumed by him till he is in possession of the house or till the decree regarding ownership is settled.  The petitioner/auction purchaser has filed the revision petition challenging the order of the State Commission.

Since the respondent is in possession of the house and he is consuming the electricity it is he alone who should make the payment for the electricity consumed.  The order passed by the State Commission is just and appropriate, and does not call for any interference.  The petitioner who is not in possession of the house, cannot be asked to pay the bill as he is not consuming the electricity.    There is no merit in this revision petition.  Revision petition is liable to be dismissed on merits as well.