1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5090 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 4013 OF 2006 Ramrao s/o. Bhaurao Sonne (Maratha) - - - Applicant versus Garbad Bhaudu Sonne (Marathe) and another. - - - Respondents Shri P. S. Pawar, Advocate for applicant. Shri M. D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 6th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. Heard Shri Pawar for the applicant and Shri Joshi for the respondent. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 25 days while preferring second appeal in this Court. It is under Section 5 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The dispute is between two real brothers over a boundary after they held two portions separately which was originally belonging to their father. The land is forest land as per the record. Earlier to the present suit, the defendant brother had filed suit for simpliciter injunction. However, it is also informed that the said suit was withdrawn by him but dispute did not end. 3. The present proceedings are arising out of a civil suit filed by the applicant against the same defendant brother for injunction simpliciter alleging that he is disturbing his cultivation and possession along with the boundary after they had separate holding as per the panchanama brought on record before the appellate Court. Both brothers are holding 5 acres of land each and both had also made recourse to the office of the District Inspector of Land Records for correct measurement of their respective holding. Still they are not happy about the boundaries so far and, therefore, it gave rise to the cause of action for the plaintiff/ applicant to file such suit for injunction simpliciter. It is admitted and it is a matter of record that applicant's brother's suit for injunction simpliciter was dismissed. So also, Regular Civil Appeal came to be dismissed. I need not go into the judgments of both the Courts below in detail 3 because the nature of the suit and the claim is not for adjudication with regards to their rights or its declaration but for injunction simpliciter. Such suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable and, therefore, suit was heard and decided. It is not disputed that in both the Courts below, the matter was not heard on merits. 4. The present hearing is focused on the application for condonation of delay mainly on the sole ground that he had no money to prefer the second appeal in time, and therefore, there was delay of 25 days. The reason stated cannot be considered sufficient because the applicant had prosecuted the suit and appeal both for such remedies where he failed. It cannot be ignored that appeals after appeals though provided in law would certainly cause prejudice to opposite party respondent. The ground stated is such that for its veracity or truth which cannot be tested at the time of hearing, but it does not sound as sufficient cause for further extension of 25 days beyond the period prescribed in law. It is usual dispute between the two brothers who have their holding adjacent to each other. They are neighbouring cultivators. There is nothing on record to show that there is case of encroachment by the defendants. What is alleged is that defendant is disturbing his possession along boundary or bandh. When such dispute is 4 already dealt with by the two Courts below, the same cannot be entertained further. As such, application for condonation of delay is devoid of substance also on merits of the matter. Hence, civil application is accordingly dismissed. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) pnk/ca509006