1. The revision was delayed by 121 days. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. This is very strange that the petitioner has mentioned about the merits of this case but delay is no where explained. However, the counsel for the petitioner states that he has explained the delay in para 5 and para 13. These paras are reproduced as hereunder: . It is submitted that there is delay of [left blank] days in filing the present revision petition as contrasted to the prescribed period of 90 days. However, it is submitted that the delay has been caused inadvertently and due to the circumstances beyond control of the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order of dismissing the First Appeal in default has been passed on 26-09-2013 by the Honle State Commission, thus, the period prescribed for preferring the Revision Petition was till 25-12-2013. 13. Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, the delay has occurred in filing the present Revision Petition. However, on the bare perusal of the facts it is crystal clear that the delay so caused in filing of this revision petition is inadvertent and due to the circumstances beyond control of the petitioner. Therefore, the delay requires to be condoned in the interest of justice and the matter be heard on its merit. 2. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has nowhere explained the delay. The cause of delay was never discussed. It shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner. The expression ufficient causecannot 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 which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. We do not find any such ufficient causestated in the application. This view stands fortified by the Honle Supreme Court in authorities reported in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC); R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC); Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 (SC) 361. The revision petition is hopelessly barred by time and, therefore, the same is dismissed.