Learned counsel for petitioner on instruction states that petitioner wants to pursue with the present petition. 2. Heard. 3. Along with present petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 642 days has also been filed. 4. Petitioner, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli (short, istrict Forum filed a consumer complaint against the Respondents/ Opposite Parties alleging deficiency on their part on the ground that a new tractor purchased by the petitioner from the respondents was having defects from very beginning. The complaint was contested by all the respondents. 5. District Forum vide its order dated 21.9.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to return Rs.4,67,524/- being the cost of the vehicle or to replace the vehicle with a defect free vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (short, tate Commission. Before the State Commission, petitioner was duly served but did not appear. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 31.3.2011, allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the complaint. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present revision petition has been filed. 8. In the present case, there is a delay of 642 days in filing of the revision petition. The main grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under ; . It is submitted that this petitioner was not aware of the appeal filed in the State Commission and subsequent passing of the order by the Honle State Commission. Only in the month of September, 2012, he came to know about the order passed by the Honle State Commission. Since his financial position was grim, he could not file appeal immediately and hence, he sent all the papers to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, New Delhi by mistake seeking help. The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee vide its letter dated 16.7.2013 returned all the papers to the petitioner stating that appeal should be filed before this Honle Commission. After arranging for funds the petitioner has approached this Advocate and the revision is filed. In the meantime, some delay has been occasioned. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the delay caused in filing the revision petition is genuine and are for the reasons which were beyond the control of the petitioner. Unless the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned, the petitioner will be put into great hardships and irreparable losses. 9. Petitioner was duly served before the State Commission but he did not appear during the hearing of the appeal. Petitioner has nowhere stated in the entire application for condonation of delay that he did not receive any notice from the State Commission. The only plea taken by the petitioner is that in the month of September, 2012, he came to know about passing of the impugned order. Petitioner has not mentioned as to how and on which date, he came to know about the order passed by the State Commission. Be that as it may, even after having got the knowledge of the order of the State Commission as early as in September, 2012, petitioner filed the present revision petition before this Commission only on 29.10.2013, that is, after 13/14 months from the date of the order. 10. It is well settled that ufficient Causefor condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact. 11. Apex Court in case Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV(2011) CPJ 63(SC) has observed ; t is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras 12. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; t is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. 13. In .B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed ; e hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. 14. Ex-facie, present application for condonation of delay is meritless and is without any legal basis. The same has been filed just to waste the precious time of this Commission. Accordingly, we do not find any sufficient ground to condone the long delay of 642 days. Therefore, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the present revision petition being hopelessly barred by limitation is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to cost.