ORDER

PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. This order shall decide all the 5 revision petitions as all of them entail the similar question of facts and law. There is delay of 149 days in filing the RP/2647/2013, 155 days in filing the RP/2721/2013, 155 days in filing the RP/2722/2013, 157 days in filing the RP/2763/2013 and 158 days in filing the RP/2764/2013. Counsel for the petitioner has moved separate applications for condonation of delay in each of the revision petition. The delay has been explained in para No. 2 of the application, which is reproduced as here under:-

“2. That though the impugned order was passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab dated 31/10/2012, its certified copy was issued only on 19/11/2012 to the counsel for the petitioner-applicant, Sh.Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate, who had been regularly conducting the case on behalf of petitioner-applicant before Hon’ble State Commission and Consumer Forums as well. The petitioner-applicant is a real estate company and has engaged employees in its rolls for regular business transactions. Mr. Pritam Singh was assigned responsibility for following the court cases, however, due to his sheer negligence and inadvertence, the Directions could not get intimated about the decision passed by ld. State Commission. The petitioner-company also did not receive any formal communication through his counsel. In the meantime, the limitation period for filing the revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission expired on 27/02/2013. Thus, during this phase and thereafter till the month of 1^st week of July, 2013, the petitioner-applicant remained oblivious of the fact of passing of the impugned order dated 31/10/2012 by ld. State Commission. Lastly, in the first week of July, 2013, when the petitioner-company received yet another communication sent by ld. District Consumer Forum, SAS Nagar relating to the present case, it was learnt that not only the appeal filed by petitioner-applicant before Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab has been dismissed, but also the respondent- complainant has filed an application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, for complying with the impugned order dated 05/08/009 passed by ld. District Consumer Forum, SAS Nagar. It was then only, the petitioner-applicant gathered all the documents from its counsel and took a decision in its Board of Directors to immediately file the case before Hon’ble National Commission. The petitioner-applicant, then engaged the counsel for filing the case, which was got drafted, approved and now it is being filed before this Hon’ble Commission, but with the delay of 98 days.”

2. The actual delay in filing the revision petitions has been stated above. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not pick up a dispute with those. It is clear that the petitioner has not filed the affidavit of Sh. Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate. The affidavit of Mr. Pritam Singh has also not seen the light of the day. The case of the petitioner hinges upon the affidavit of Sh. Krishan Goyal, Director of the petitioner. Section 5, Limitation Act and proviso to Section 15, Consumer Protection Act is in pari materia – A bare look at Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, makes it plain that the material part of the language of the proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act is in pari materia therewith. Therefore, it would seem settled beyond caisil; that it is incumbent on appellant to explain each day of default beyond the terminus line of the prescribed period of limitation. Effort made to explain the delay on day-to-day basis does not satisfy this Commission. Each day’s delay 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 Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act. There must be some cause that must be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonati