Mr. Manish Pitale, advocate heard on length with reference to delay of three years which was not condoned by the State Commission. Learned counsel explains it with reference to the copy of delay condonation application filed before the State Commission in this behalf. It is stated that the land in question was situated in Amravati district. The entire proceedings initiated by the complainant were before District Forum, Amravati. The OP, as per this condonation application, did not received any notice because he had, for over several years prior to the said proceedings, been residing at Nagpur. 2. As per condonation application, revision petitioner/OP for the first time came to know about the existence of the order of the District Forum made on 27-06-2005 that the warrant under the execution proceedings initiated by the complainant was served on him on 24-04-2008. The certified copy was applied for on 16-08-2008 and, as per endorsement of Amravati district, made available on the same day. Thereafter, as per the copy of memorandum of appeal, the appeal was filed before the State Commission at Nagpur on 28-08-2008. 3. From the perusal of the application for condonation of delay together with the impugned order and arguments of learned counsel today I find that:-- (a) While the warrant under the execution proceedings was admittedly served on 24-04-2008, the application for copy of the original order of the District Forum was not made until 16-08-2008. There is no explanation for this long gap of nearly four months when the knowledge itself had come through service of warrant in execution proceedings. (b) Learned counsel accepts that there is no evidence produced by the revision petitioner to show that memorandum of appeal dated 28-08-2008 was in fact submitted to and accepted by the State Commission on the same day. It is, therefore, not possible to take 28-08-2008 as the actual date of filing of appeal. (c) The revision petitioner has placed on record the relevant proceedings of the District Forum of 16-09-2005, 19-10-2005 and 03-02-2006. On the first day execution proceedings were commenced and on the third day i.e. on 03-02-2006, it was noted that publication of the notice against the OP had been made in aily Sakalof 09-12-2005. 4. Learned counsel does accept today that the newspaper has fairly awarded circulation in Maharashtra including Nagpur. In view of the above, I find that the revision petitioner has failed to make out any case against the impugned order. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine at the stage of admission itself.