Heard. 2. Alongwith present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 186 days has been filed. 3. It has been contended leaned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner received the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the State Commission on 16.11.2012. Thereafter, he filed the present revision on 8.2.2013. It is further contended that petitioner could not file the present petition in time, since petitioner was not aware of passing of the impugned order as he was not served any notice of the appeal and the appeal was decided in his absence. 4. Grounds on which condonation of delay have been sought, read as under; . This Revision Petition is being filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.4.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No.2492 of 2007 whereby the Honle State Commission allowed the First Appeal without hearing the applicant/petitioner. 2. That the petitioner was not aware about the passing of the impugned order as he was never served and the appeal was decided in his absence. The applicant was came to know only after he received notice of execution and thereafter he met his counsel at Chandigarh who inquired about the appeal and applied for the impugned orders and now the present revision petition is being filed, but there occurred delay of 186 days in filing the same. 3. That the delay in filing the petition is not intentional but due the reasons as narrated above 5. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact. 6. Recently, Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that; 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 7. In the entire application, petitioner has nowhere stated as to on which date he had received the notice of the execution petition. Nor he has placed copy of that notice on record. Further, as per certified copy of the impugned order placed on record, there is an endorsement on it; ertified copy of the order supplied free of cost to the parties/counsel on 8.5.2012 8. When admittedly, petitioner had received the free copy of impugned order on 8.5.2012, then why it took so long for the petitioner to file revision before this Commission on 8.2.2013 has not been explained. This plea of the petitioner that he received the certified copy of the impugned order on 16.11.2012 is thus patently false. It is apparent from the record that certified copy of impugned order filed along with present petition is dated 16.11.2012 which was obtained only after petitioner has applied for the certified copy of the order. 9. Accordingly, we find no just and sufficient cause to condone the long delay of 186 days in filing of the present petition. Application for condonation of delay being without any merit as well having no legal basis is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. With the result, the present revision petition being barred by limitation, is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to cost.