JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. There is delay of 112 days in filing this revision petition. The delay is explained in Para Nos. 3 & 4 of the application, which are reproduced as follows:- . That there is a delay of 102 days in filing the Special Leave Petition in the Honle Court. That the impugned order was passed by the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula on 16.12.2011. On 16.12.2011 itself, application for certified copy was made. On 11.01.2012 the first copy of the impugned order was issued and the same was delivered by the counsel on 25.01.2012 and it received the petitioner on 02.02.2012. Thereafter, on 14.02.2012, the case file was collected by the petitioner from his counsel and it took some time to consult and decide the future course of action. The petitioner took two monthstime to decide and finally decided to file the Revision Petition on 15.04.2009 and handed over the complete case file to the counsel in National Commission on 21.04.2012. The petitioner took some time to arrange the counsel fee and expenses to file the case in National Commission as the petitioner is a poor person. Time was taken to prepare the Revision Petition and the same is being filed on 13.08.2012. 4. That, it is submitted that this Honle Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. M. Katiji, 1987 (28) E.LT. 185 and Bhag Singh and others 1987 (32) E.L.T. 298 held that the court should not take too strict and pedantic view which will cause injustice while considering the application for condonation of delay 2. The delay explained in para No.3 of the application does not constitute sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The petitioner became aware of the fact that the order was passed by the State Commission 16.12.2011. But he has not disclosed when did he receive the free copy. If the delay is counted from 16.12.2011, then there is delay of 250 days. When the petitioner was aware that the order was passed he should have got the free copy there and then itself. It was not disclosed that when the Advocate got the copy and why there was delay in delivering the copy to the complainant by the counsel. The petitioner took two months to make his decision that revision petition should be filed. The question of poverty does not come to rescue of the petitioner. In this country, most of the people are poor. This cannot be said to be a good ground for condoning the delay. 3. The authorities cited by the petitioner in Para 4 of the application are also not applicable to this case. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special law which prescribes summary procedure. The appeal has to be decided within 90 days. There is delay of 250 days which cannot be condoned on frivolous grounds. The CP Act, 1986 prescribes its own period of limitation. The provisions of CP Act, 1986 must be followed strictly. 4. This view stands get emboldened by the following authorities. In Anshul Aggarwal v. 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. 5. 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. 6. The Honle Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221 has held that : ection 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. We have also perused the order passed by the State Commission. Even if the petitioner has newly owned the house, the previous owner is bound to pay the bill. That should be stipulated in the terms and conditions of the sale deed. The petitioner can get the said amount from its previous owner. The said sale deed did not see the light of the day. It is well settled that the new owner who steps into the shoes of the previous owner, is entitled and liable for his rights as well as his duties. Before purchase of a house, he must see to it that no liabilities are attached to the said house. The revision petition is without any merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed on both counts of delay and merits.