Not satisfied with the extent of relief granted to him and seeking its upgradation, the original complainant has filed this appeal against the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ( in short, he State Commission in C.D. No. 60 of 2007. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the appellant herein with a direction to the opposite parties-service providers to jointly and severally pay Rs.9,41,630/- towards cost of grapes, Rs. 4,00,000/- towards loss and expenditure incurred by the complainant including dumping charges etc. together with interest @9% p.a. from 4.5.2007 till the date of realization besides cost of Rs.5,000/- with the stipulation that the order shall be complied with within four weeks. The appeal has been filed after undue delay of 222 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. The sole reason set up in the application for seeking condonation of delay for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation is that -3- the file sent by the appellant to the counsel of the appellant was misplaced due to renovation work in his office. Though an affidavit of the proprietor has been filed but no affidavit of the counsel to whom the file was entrusted for filing the appeal or who misplaced the same due to renovation work in his office, has been filed. The averment is otherwise vague. Any person seeking condonation of delay in filing such suit or other proceedings is obliged to show ufficient causewhich prevented him to approach the court or tribunal with the proceedings within the prescribed period. Sufficient cause must be real and genuine which prevented the party from approaching the court or tribunal and should not be illusory. Besides, the appellant seeking condonation of delay must explain each days and no bald statement explaining delay of several months can be made. We are not prepared to believe the cause as shown by the appellant as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It would rather appear to us that the present appeal has been filed as an after-thought device after receipt of a notice in appeal No. 94 of 2010 filed by the opposite party-M/s Gubba Cold Storage Ltd. & Anr., challenging the same very finding and order of the State Commission. We see no ground to -4- condone the delay. The application is accordingly declined. We refrain from adverting to the merits of the appeal lest it should prejudice any of the parties in consideration of the other appeal, which has been admitted for hearing and is pending in this Commission. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.