1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6061 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 6593 OF 2007 Sachin S/o Shivaji Gulve .. Applicant Versus The Maharashtra State Electricity Board Beed and others .. Respondents Shri S. K. Naikwade, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S. M. Godsay, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Naikwade, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. M. Godsay, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay purported to be under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. There is delay of 461 days. The reason stated is that, the appellant was minor when the suit was filed for damages bearing Special Civil Suit No. 337/1997. The suit was filed by his mother for herself and for minor children including the appellant for damages on account of tragic death of his father. The suit was filed by them for Rs. 2,50,000/- as damages against the 2 respondent No. 1/M.S.E.B. for negligence and carelessness. 2. On 21st May, 1992 appellants father Shivaji Tukaram Gulve died due to electric shock. He started the electric motor installed on the well situated at village Pachangri, Tq. Patoda, District Beed. The incident took place at about 10.00 a. m. when the deceased had gone to the field of one Vaijnath Mundhe and received electric shock while starting the electric motor. The original plaintiffs claimed was for Rs. 2,50,000/-, however the Trial Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-. So they preferred an appeal for Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the appeal the learned 7th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Beed partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 95/2004 the present appellant after attaining majority filed the second appeal. 3. The reason stated for delay is that, he was minor during the proceeding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and after attaining the age of majority on 27.03.2006 he waited further for getting help from his mother and brother, but they did not cooperate him. So the appellant at his own accord filed this second appeal for Rs. 50,000/-, the claim which was disallowed by the first appellate Court and also by the Trial Court. The other original plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the respondents in this appeal. They did not appear or filed any separate appeal. Thus it appears that, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are not supporting the claim of appeal or they are disinterested in appeal for further enhancement after the First Appellate Court decreed their claim for Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3 4. Shri Godsay, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that, the delay is inordinate. It is the case of damages and not for any recovery of money claim on the basis of any transaction as such. I have gone through both the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. The learned lower Appellate Court has properly appreciated the claim of the plaintiff which was limited to Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was substantial and found no fault while dismissing the claim of Rs. 50,000/-. Even on merits of the case the plaintiff/appellant has not proved his case. A person may demand any claim, but decree will be for such claim which he deserves. A demand cannot be a decree. Similarly, I find that, there is considerable delay while preferring the second appeal and no case is made out for condonation of delay. 5. In view of appellants claim has been substantially allowed and decreed by the First Appellate Court, though there is provision of condonation of delay by extension of further period of limitation, it would certainly cause prejudice to the opposite party against whom the appeal is preferred. It cannot be forgotten that, the time is important dimension of the litigation and not the merits of the claim alone. The appellant/applicant miserably failed to satisfy this Court, that he was prevented from approaching this Court by such reasons stated for considering his request for extension of period of limitation beyond the period prescribed in law which is 90 days. 6. Upon consideration of record and after hearing both the sides, the application for condonation of delay deserves to the dismissed. For the reasons given above, the application for the condonation of 4 delay stands dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant made a request for refund of court fees as per rule. The applicant/appellant is entitled for refund of court fees as per rules. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09