PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK Counsel for the petitioner heard. There is delay of 296 days. The petitioner explained the delay in Para 2 of his application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as follows:- “2. That the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the counsel. The delay in filing the revision has occasioned due to the reason since he had entrusted his case file to the LD Counsel engaged below, in the appeal, therefore, he was under this bonafide belief that his case has yet not been decided. On 1-7-2012, the applicant came to Shimla to enquire about status of his appeal from his advocate who told him the appeal has already been accepted on 30-6-2011. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is a poor, semi-literate person and applicant was told by the counsel at the time of handling over the case that he will be intimated whenever his presence will be required and at the conclusion of the case. Moreover, decision of his appeal was also not conveyed to him by the advocate till he reached at Shimla. It is also not out of place to mention here that the applicant/petitioner is also not keeping good health and also due to this reason he could not come to Shimla. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is a poor person of about 60 years of age and is residing in a small village Maleta Tehsil Naina Devi Distt. Bilaspur which is situated at a distance of about 200 km from Shimla involving journey of about 8 hours.” 2. The affidavit of the Advocate was not filed. Such like stories can be created any time. This is a lame excuse. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. 3. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), was pleased to hold, “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”. 5. In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221 has held that; “Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain everydays delay”. 7. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010, in which it was held that the party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. 8. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case, especially when the case was regarding deposit of arrears of rent. The statute also prescribes a time bound programme regarding the deposit to be made. 9. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was laid down that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed. 10. In Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor has he did sent any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay. 11. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92. 12. Recently this Commission presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan has dismissed the revision petition on the ground of delay and the delay of 104 days was not condoned, in case reference “Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr.” [Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012]. 13. Nowadays it has become a fashion to blame the Advocates without any rhyme or reason. 14. We have also considered the merits of this case. As per inquest report submitted by the S.D.M. Barsar, Jamuna Devi deceased committed suicide by jumping and drowning int o a sedimentary tank. Post Mortem report C5 fully corroborates this conclusion. It reads that she had died as a result of asphyxia following drowning. After receipt of chemical examination report, the said opinion was endorsed by the doctor. Thus the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. 15. The revision is dismissed at the time of admission of this case. | 
