Heard Counsel for the Petitioner in all the four revision petitions which are connected. There is delay of 85 to 101 days in filing the revisions. The explanation given in the condonation applications is that the copy of the order was received by the Petitioner on 24.6.2010 in RP/4560/2010, RP4511/2010 and on 15.06.2010 in RP/4512/2010, RP/4559/2010 due to misplacement of case file bundle by the clerk of the Advocate. The missing case file bundle was found on 25.11.2010 in RP/4511/2010, RP/4512/2010 and on 7.12.2010 in RP/4559/2010, RP/4560/2010 No affidavit of Advocate concerned or clerk of Advocate has been filed. No name of the Advocate clerk has been mentioned. Counsel for the Petitioner also states that no action has been taken against clerk of Advocate in this behalf. In view of this, the explanation furnished cannot be accepted and the revisions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same. Besides, on merits also we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the concurrent orders passed by fora below. Both the fora below have held that the Petitioner is not a consumer since 32 tyres were purchased by the Petitioner for commercial purpose for carrying on business. The fora below have threadbare considered this issue and we completely agree with the findings of two fora below that the Petitioner does not qualified to be a consumer since the tyres were purchased for commercial purpose. In view of the above, the revisions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.