PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. He has paid Rs. 5,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account. There is a delay of two years and 10 months in filing the appeal before the State Commission. A perusal of the State Commission order clearly shows that the main grounds indicated in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay were these:- “1. That delay in filing the appeal is not deliberate but due to Advocte who was doing pairvi on behalf of the appellant. 2. That the Advocate did not inform about the progress of the case or that it has been decided against the appellant. 3. That the appellant came to know that complaint has been decided against him when his counsel served with judgment of the case.” 2. There is inordinate delay in filing the Appeal. There is a delay of near about 1000 days. 3. The warning bells should have rung while filing the present Revision Petition but it was not to be . There was further delay of 268 days in filing the present Revision Petition. Counsel for the petitioner admits that he has not filed the application for condonation of delay. 4. It has become a fashion to condemn the Advocate, and put all the blame at his doors, that too, in his absence. Even the name of the advocate or his affidavit did not see the light of the day. 5. 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. 6. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was observed 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. 7. 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 sent any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay. 8. There is a huge delay, which cannot be condoned in view of the following authorities reported in the cases of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), 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 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045. 9. The Revision Petition is hopelessly barred by time and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. | 
