1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6867 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 26109 OF 2002 Vilas S/o Kisan Avhad .. Applicant (Orig. Plaintiff) Versus Laxman S/o Babu Avhad .. Respondent (Orig. Defendant) Shri B. N. Palve, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri K. D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 03RD NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Palve the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant on the point of delay of 11 days. He stated that this is application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that, the applicant had filed civil suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant to protect his possession over 6R land, which is part of land gat No. 27 situated at village Jambhali, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. The defendant is 2 his adjacent land owner. His claim for perpetual injunction was decreed by the Trial Court, however the appeal of the defendant came to be allowed with certain observations found in the para No. 10 of the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court. It was observed by the appellate Court that in the absence of the suit for possession, no claim for perpetual injunction should be considered and it was further observed that, the applicant/plaintiff had lost possession long back. 2. It is true that, while deciding application for condonation of delay no merits are to be considered, but what is to be seen as to whether there is sufficient cause for granting extension of time for preferring an appeal. The period mentioned in the Schedule Second Appeal is ninety days. I have gone through the grounds stated in the application. The main grounds are poverty, old age and applicant was ignorant about the provisions of law. It is informed that, the appellant is 65 years old at the time of filing application. He filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the year 1991. Thus he is prosecuting his suit and appeal against the defendant with the assistance of lawyer and as such cannot be said to be ignorant about the procedure. He also defended the appeal so far and, therefore, his contention that because of poverty, he could not file appeal in time seems incorrect. The grounds stated are general and vague. More over the suit filed by him was for perpetual injunction simplicitor, where his possession is mostly taken into consideration. Normally, in a civil suit it is the adjudication of rights between the parties. None of the grounds satisfy this Court on the point of sufficient ground for 3 not preferring the appeal irrespective of the period of number of days mentioned in the application. No case is made out for condoning the delay. The application stands dismissed after hearing the both parties. The civil application is disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09