IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1686 of 2009 KANTI DEVI, wife of Jagarnath Prasad Gupta, resident of vill.-Daudpur, P.S.-Sahpur, District-Patna-------------------Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ramanand Rai, son of late Babu Thakur Rai 3. Manoj Kumar 4. Sanjay Kumar 5. Dhananjay Kumar 6. Nitya Nand @ Chanarik Rai All sons of Ramanand Rai, resident of vill.-Daudpur, P.S.-Sahpur, Distt.- Patna.-----------------------------------------------------Opp. Parties. ----------- 2. 4.11.2009 Heard. This revision petition is filed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2008. Report of stamp reporter about expiry of limitation is on 15.3.2009 and this revision petition is filed in the year 2009 much after elapsing of limitation. An attempt is made to explain the delay i.e. about applying for certified copy on 30.3.2009 after coming from Delhi. But no reason is given as to why petitioner went to Delhi. There should be some reason. Ninety days are allowed for filing revision petition. There can be no question to explain this period as to why revision was not filed. But it is relevant on the point that petitioner should know the last date of limitation. Ignoring that if petitioner left for Delhi, there would be no excuse for that. Further there is no mention when certified copy was made available to him. Only it is said that after obtaining certified copy it was misplaced by the advocate clerk. So I find the explanation given by the petitioner not sufficient for condoning the delay. Accordingly, limitation petition is dismissed. The revision petition is also dismissed finding the same time barred. sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )