There is a delay of 267 days in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The delay has been explained in para 4 of the application which is reproduced as follows: “4.That the petitioner due to some family problems was not able to contact with the counsel therefore the petitioner contacted the counsels in the month of March. Thereafter the record of the case is in Hindi and the counsel for the petitioner has sent all the record for translation. Therefore the delay has been occurred.” This application is vague evasive and leads the Commission nowhere. The application has mentioned about family problem but has not explained the same. The petitioner had sent the papers for translation from Hindi to English. By no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said to be a sufficient ground. It must be borne in mind that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes its own period of limitation. The appeals and revision petitions are to be decided within the prescribed period. There is huge delay of 267 days in filing the instant revision petition. The revision petition is barred by time. The following authorities neatly dovetail with this view. 6. 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”. 7. Similar view was taken in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.07.2010, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 8. 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, vide reference in case “Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr.” [Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012]. The case is hopelessly barred by time. Dismissed as such. | 
