1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7213 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 8481 OF 2001 1. Kisan S/o Keshav Gulwe, and others .. .. Applicants Versus 1. Anil S/o Ramkrishna Jadhav, and others .. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for the Applicants - absent. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Called out twice. None present for the applicants. This is an application for condonation of delay of 808 days caused in preferring the second appeal. The reason stated is that, appellants are poor and could not arrange for funds. Except this there is no other reasons stated. Looking at the figure it is notorious delay. The ground stated is general ground and merely stating ground is not enough for extension of period of limitation beyond the time prescribed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2 2. It is not stated that, how much money is required for filing appeal and how much money was collected and how much money was short. On perusal of record it shows that, this second appeal is arising out of a suit for perpetual injunction and in both the Courts below the plaintiffs/appellants miserably failed. They have not proved their possession. 3. It is true that, the merits of the case are not to be seen at this stage and the focus is on the sufficient cause to be shown to satisfy the Court as to what prevented from coming to the Court in time. I have gone through the application, so also the relevant part of the record. In my opinion, no case is made out for further extension of period beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed on merits. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov.09