PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.05.2013 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 123 of 2007 Superintending Engineer, Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Vishawanath Prasad by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner was consumer of OP/respondent and had Consumer No. K.P./EI D.S. 1726 which was provided on 25.9.1998. Complainant being Government servant remained outside; even then, he received bill for the month of June, 2000/- which was paid. Again he received the bill for the month of July, 2000 and amount was paid. Later on, he received bill for Rs.45,490.42 for the month of December, 2001. This bill contained dues of Consumer No. KP/EI D.S.74, which had no connection with the complainant. Inspite of request bill was not rectified and connection was disconnected. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP resisted complaint and submitted that both connections were pertaining to the complainant provided in the same premises and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and quashed aforesaid illegal bill and further directed to issue bill only against connection DS1726. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly quashed illegal bill and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal on the ground of time barred complaint though, complaint was not time barred; hence, revision petition be admitted. 5. Admittedly, disputed bill for Rs.45,490.42 for the month of December, 2001 was given to the petitioner and he protested on 15.1.2002. Again, he requested for rectification of bill of 3.7.2002 and 25.7.2002 and as per complaint, no further action was taken by the complainant and complaint for quashing the aforesaid illegal bill was filed on 27.6.2006 apparently after 4years. Learned State Commission rightly observed that complaint was filed after 4 years and 6 months and complaint was time barred. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was continuously pursuing the matter and as his grievances were not redressed, he was compelled to file complaint. Mere persuasion does not extend limitation as held by us in IV (2013) CPJ 567 (NC) - Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. K.C. Aggarwal & Ors. 7. In the light of above discussion, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admissions stage with no order as to costs.