Mr. Avanish Kumar, Advocate heard at length on behalf of the revision petitioner-Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. The petition has been filed with delay of 58 days. A perusal of the application seeking condonation of this delay shows that the petitioner has squarely placed the entire responsibility for the delay at the door of its counsel. The relevant paras read as under: “That on 17.01.2013, the petitioner has came to know about passing of the impugned order when it received the e-mail from its earlier counsel regarding the status of the appeal/ revision filed before the Learned State Commission. It is pertinent to mention that earlier the said counsel did not inform the petitioner about the impugned order, despite enquiring about the same. That as the petitioner neither received the certified copy of the impugned order from its earlier counsel nor from the Learned State Commission nor aware about the correct status of the petitioner filed by its earlier counsel before the State Commission, accordingly on 31.01.2013 the petitioner engaged another legal firm viz. BSK Legal, Delhi and instructed to find the correct status of the matter from the Learned State Commission.” 2. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner was directly asked whether any action has been taken by Kotak Mahindra against the concerned Advocate. As per the information of the learned counsel, no action has been taken other than all cases have been withdrawn from him. This is no ground in the absence of any details or affidavit in support of what cases have been withdrawn from the Advocate. I therefore, do not find it as adequate justification of the delay of 58 days. 3. Coming to the merits, I do not even understand why revision petitioner has chosen to challenge the order of the State Commission. The order is not passed on any evaluation of evidence but on a recorded statement of the counsel representing the present revision petitioner before the State Commission. In this statement, as recorded by the State Commission, Mr. Sumit Chander, Advocate had made a statement before the State Commission on 02.12.2012 that “stated that I do not want to press this revision petition and same may be dismissed as withdrawn”. The State Commission has squarely and solely relied on this recorded statement and dismissed the revision petition, as withdrawn. 4. The Revision Petition is without any merit and is dismissed as such. | 
