JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) M/s Alliance Builders and Contractors Ltd., the revision petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order of U.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing his appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum has filed the instant revision petition. The revision petition, however, has been filed with a delay of 263 days after the expiry of period of limitation. Thus, the petitioner has moved instant application no. 01/2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Learned Shri Nikhil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that delay caused in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and the petitioner was prevented from filing the revision petition, firstly, for the reason that various settlement talks were going on between the parties which could not materialize and, thereafter, riots took place in Bareily. It is, however, contended that after the things cool down, the petitioner contacted his local lawyer at Lucknow who advised him to prefer revision petition against the impugned order and, thereafter, the petitioner contacted his lawyer at Delhi who drafted the revision petition and filed the same at the earliest. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed after a delay of 263 days after the expiry of period of limitation. After having lost in two forums, we do not think that it was necessary for the insurance company to file this revision petition against the concurrent findings of District Consumer Forum and the State Commission. Perusal of the application of condonation of delay would show that application, so far as cause of delay is concerned, is as vague, as it could be. It is not disclosed on which date settlement talks took place or on which date the riots took place. It is not even disclosed in the petition when the petitioner met his local counsel at Lucknow and when he contacted his counsel at Delhi. We are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to give reasonable explanation as to what prevented him from filing the revision petition within the period of limitation. In absence of any such explanation, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the revision petition. Application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed. Since the delay has not been condoned, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.