JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Arguments heard. There is delay in filing First Appeal before the State Commission by 113 days. The facts of this case are these. The case of the petitioner was dismissed in default on 02.12.2010 by the District Forum. Although the petitioner has not filed the certified copy of that order, yet from the True copy of the order passed by the District Froum on 08.05.2012, the said order is reproduced:- omplainant did not appear in the court on 02.12.2010 despite several calls till 12.45pm. Thereafter the case was adjourned for after lunch-break. After lunch-break, none appeared for the complainant. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed in default 2. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application for review, on the very next day, which was dismissed on 08.05.2012. 3. We have also perused the application for review where it is mentioned that clerk of the counsel went thrice in the court/forum of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but the opposite counsel was not available. Thereafter, he went to the seat of Shri J.S.Kingra, the opposite party counsel but he was found to have gone out of station. The clerk of the counsel for the complainant could not get the adjournment date and subsequently on 03.12.2010, he came to know that the case was dismissed in default. The affidavit of the clerk or that of the Advocate did not see the light of the day. Such like stories can be created at any time. The version given in the application for restoration goes contrary to the order sheet. 4. It may also be mentioned that order regarding dismissal of review petition was passed in open court in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner Sh.R.P.Jindal. 5. The First Appeal was delayed by 113 days. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. The delay is explained in para No.2 of the application which runs as follows:- hat the applicant was keen to file an appeal against the order passed by the Ld.District Forum, Sirsa. However due to lack of money the delay in filing the present appeal is occurred. However, with lot of efforts he have arranged the money and approached this Honle Forum 6. The State Commission placed reliance on two authorities, State of Nagaland Vs. Lipokao and Others reported in 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 414 and D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in 2007) 2 SCC 322. The State Commission also observed that the counsel was engaged prior to 07.07.2012 but he failed to file the First Appeal immediately. State Commission further observed that the act and the conduct of the appellant shows that there was negligence and inaction on his part in not taking care of his case. 7. Moreover, the State Commission also observed that t is a case in which the appellant/complainant has tried to overcome his efficiency in not filing the appeal within the limitation period, despite the fact that entire case was prepared on 07.07.2012 but he has intentionally delayed the filing of the appeal by making cutting in the date from 07.07.2012 to 28.09.2012. This act on the part of the appellant amounts to manipulation in the judicial record. We, therefore, feel that this act and conduct of the appellant cannot be taken lightly and must be dealt with heavy hands 8. The petitioner has failed to explain the cause for delay, ufficiently This view finds force from the following authorities. 9. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that it 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. 10. This view was also taken in three other authorities reported in (1) Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, (2) Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010 and (3) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 11. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.