PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of M.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, he State Commission has preferred this revision petition. Alongwith revision petition, the application for condonation of delay of 71 days in filing of revision petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner (opposite party) provided a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant respondent for purchase of a Mahindra Tourist vehicle on hire purchase basis. The loan amount was to be paid in 34 instalments. It was agreed that the first instalment would be of Rs.24,500/- and remaining instalments would be of Rs.12,250/- each. 3. According to the respondent-complainant, he had paid all the instalments against loan during the period w.e.f.01.06.2004 to 02.09.2005. Despite of that the petitioner repossessed the vehicle on 23.10.2005 without giving notice, on the ground that a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- was outstanding against the loan and sold the vehicle without any notice to the respondent for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. On the aforesaid averments, the respondent filed complaint claiming a sum of Rs.82000/- as compensation and also for other charges. 4. The petitioner admitted that they had financed Rs.3,50,000/- for purchase of vehicle by the opposite party. The petitioner, however, denied that the respondent had paid the instalments regularly. It was claimed by the petitioner that on 23.10.2005, a sum of Rs.85,650/- was outstanding against the respondent and, therefore, the vehicle was possessed in a lawful manner and sold. The petitioner denied deficiency of service on his part. 5. The District Forum after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the possession of the vehicle was taken by the petitioner without informing the respondent about any amount outstanding against him and, thereafter, the vehicle was unlawfully sold without notice. Thus, the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation to the respondent besides Rs.15000/- as the amount spent on obtaining permit and registration and Rs.1000/- as cost. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission. 7. It is against the aforesaid dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner has preferred the revision petition. He has also filed the application for condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay caused in filing of revision petition is unintentional. Actually the documents received from the office were not legible. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner asked for the original copies of those documents from Bombay Head Office of the petitioner company. It took some time in tracing the original documents and, thereafter, the documents were received back in the local office of petitioner in third week of September which were then transmitted to the Advocate for drafting the preparation of revision petition. It is further contended that some of the documents were in Hindi, therefore, sometime was taken in getting those documents translated in English. Thus it is contended that delay caused in filing of revision petition is not deliberate and it has occurred because of the aforesaid reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus urged us to condone the delay in filing of revision petition. 9. We are not convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, firstly, for the reason that the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay in filing of revision petition is vague. The application does not disclose the name of the counsel for the petitioner who insisted for original copies of the documents. It also does not disclose various dates of the movement of papers and the date on which the counsel for the petitioner asked for original copies. It also does not disclose the date on which the original documents were traced and also the date on which the documents were sent to the Advocate for drafting the preparation of revision petition. Further, we may note that the application for condonation of delay is not even supported by affidavit of either some responsible officer of the petitioner company or the concerned Advocate. Law relating to the condonation of delay in filing of suit or petition after the expiry of period of limitation is well settled. The condonation of delay cannot be as a matter of routine and the petitioner in such cases is required to explain the delay for each and every date after the expiry of period of limitation. In the matter of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the Honle Supreme Court has held that while deciding an application 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 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. In the instant case, as discussed above, the petitioner has failed to disclose sufficient cause for delay caused in filing of revision petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay on this count alone and revision petition fails. 10. Even on merits, we find that both the District Consumer Forum as well as the State Commission have given concurrent finding of fact that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the petitioner without serving notice of outstanding amount on the respondent and it was also sold without giving any notice to the respondent. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, also the revision petition fails. 11. In view of the above discussion, application for condonation of delay in filing revision petition is dismissed. Accordingly, revision petition being time barred is also dismissed. No order as to costs.