We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent, which was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum. 3. The case of the petitioner was that the electricity meter was not properly checked and checking report was faulty. He alleged -2- deficiency in service and contended that the demand bills were erroneous. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, the petitioner preferred a review application. The review application was, however, withdrawn when it was noticed that the same was not maintainable at all. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal. There was delay in filing of the appeal. The delay of 261 days was not initially explained but later on, when the office raised objection, a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. The State Commission dismissed the review application and the delay condonation application mainly on the ground that delay of 261 days could not be condoned in view of the legal position enumerated in .P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Another Vs. Smt.Satyawati- III(1999) CPJ 217 It is observed in the given case that the time spent by a party in review proceedings cannot be condoned, inasmuch as the review application is impermissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, such condonation is also impermissible. We do not find any substantial reason to deviate from the settled legal position. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is without merits, and as such, is dismissed, with no order as to cost.