1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2452 OF 1999 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 5859 OF 1999 Kishanrao S/o Mahadji Akhare Died-through-L.R’s 1. Jagdevrao S/o Kishanrao Akhare and another .. .. Applicants Versus 1. Keshav S/o Gangaram Kundkare and others .. .. Respondents Shri S. V. Natu, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri P. S. Agrawal, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1, 6 to 8, 10 and 11. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Natu, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Shri Agrawal, the learned counsel for the respondents. The main contesting party is respondent No. 1. The applicant/appellant is original plaintiff who lost his suit for perpetual injunction. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, so also the First Appellate Court dismissed his appeal. Now he is before this Court in second appeal. 2 2. While preferring second appeal there is admittedly delay of 104 days or more. Hence this civil application for condonation of delay. I have gone through the contents of the application, so also heard the submissions of Shri Natu, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. The reasons given are not convincing. There is no question of condonation of delay, as such, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it reads as extension of period of limitation beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law. No case is made out for such extension of period of 104 days or so. 3. It is true that, the grounds mentioned or reasons given requires no proof, but it must be substantiated by proper explanation. The application is vague. It is stated that, applicant had no knowledge about the impugned judgment till he overheard it from the villagers and then applied for certified copy and after getting certified copy, he took some time to prepare himself for filing the present appeal. 4. This is not the first time he has come to the Court, but this is third time and precisely second time in appeal. The time is important dimension in every litigation, in addition to the merits of the case. It cannot be lost sight that, by repeated appeals the opposite party is prejudiced, his interest is also to be safeguarded. Merely because there are provisions of appeals after appeal, it should not encourage for such an appeal which do not deserve condonation or extension of period of limitation. Moreover it is 3 also seen that applicant had lost in both the Courts below. He brought the suit for injunction simplicitor i. e. for perpetual injunction and grant of injunction is discretionary, is considered only on the proof of possession. The application is devoid of merits. The application is therefore, stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov.09