PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 99 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The petitioner has explained the delay in para Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay, which run as follows:- “2. That the certified copy of the impugned order dated 18.12.2013 was received by the Appellant on 01.04.2014. After pursuing the order and direction of the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, it was advised to the petitioner herein that a revision petition may be preferred against the said order as rights of the Petitioner had been severely affected due to the decision. 3. That the draft of the petition was sent to the office of the petitioner. The revision petition was thereafter verified by the concerned official of the revisionist and was sent back to the office of the counsel of the Petitioner. 4. That thereafter, the final draft of the revision petition was sent to the office of the revisionist for signing and the signed copy of the same was sent to the office of the counsel of the petitioner on 09.06.2014. As the counsel of the revisionist was on a leave due to vacations of the Courts the same could not be filed within the period of limitation and the same is thus being filed on 25.06.2014.” 2. There is only procedural and departmental delay. Day to day delay was never explained. It is well known fact that the Revision Petition can be filed even during the summer vacation and vacation judges hear the cases. 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 and Consumer Protection Act. 3. It must be borne in mind that the procedure under C.P.Act is summary procedure. The Act itself fixes time for disposal of a case as well as appeal and Revision Petition. The Law gives 90 days to file the Revision Petition. It, therefore means that the petitioner took 90 days + 99 days in filing the present Revision Petition and no sufficient cause has been explained. The excuse put forward by the petitioner is fragile. The Apex Court under the C.P.Act itself, in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), 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”. 4. Again, similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 5. The case is hopelessly barred by time and therefore, we hold that it is barred by time. 5. Now, we turn to the merits of this case. The transaction between the Bank and the petitioner is of commercial nature. The petitioner is not a consumer. Moreover, the petitioner himself admitted that he would pay the penalty in the sum of 2%. He singed the papers with open eyes. 6. The Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by time as well as on merits. | 
