JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) Mr. Shiv B. Chetry, learned proxy counsel for Mr. Nitin Lonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. He states that Mr. Lonkar has gone out of station and seeks an hour time to seek instructions. Mr. Shiv B. Chetry, learned proxy counsel appears after an hour and submits that there are valid grounds for delay and therefore, the delay should be condoned. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para 2, which is reproduced as under: “2. That after the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission petitioner approached his local lawyer, who advise him not to prefer any revision against the impugned order in any court of law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot approach in this Hon’ble Commission in time. Now some other Advocate advised me that I may file the Revision Petition before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Therefore, I am filing this present revision. The delay of 386 -2- of days is not intentional or deliberate. Therefore, this Hon’ble Commission may please be condone the delay in the interest of justice and circumstances mentioned as above beyond the control of the petitioners.” This argument lacks conviction. There is huge delay in filing this revision petition. Day to day delay of 386 days has not been explained. 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 the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay. In one day only as many as 10-12 advocates can be consulted. 3. This view neatly dovetails with the finding of the authority in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein 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 -3- 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. Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361; Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221. The revision petition is hopelessly barred by time. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
