1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5503 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 15352 OF 2007 Shevantabai W/o Panditrao Nagargoge and another .. .. Applicants Versus Kundlik Tukaram Mundhe and others.. .. Respondents Shri Sanjay Mundhe, Advocate for the Applicants. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Shri Sanjay Mundhe, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is present. Admittedly, there is delay of 18 days caused in filing the second appeal, hence this application for condonation of delay. There is another office endorsement found on record that bhatta not paid. It appears that, the appellant is not serious about the appeal, even at the time of filing the same the delay occasioned. 2. Perused the application for condonation of delay. The reasons are given in para 4 of the application. It is stated that, it is not intentional or deliberate act of the appellants. They are illiterate and resident of remote village of Nagdara and Daunapur, Tq. Ambajogai. The applicants are old aged persons and they are poor. Now a days they are not keeping well and suffering from diseases because of old 2 age. Therefore, they decided to appoint general power of attorney holder to file this appeal through advocate. 3. After going through synopsis, it is seen that, the applicants are the original plaintiffs and they lost in both the Courts below. They filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 239/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Parli for declaration of ownership and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and order dated 02.04.1994. So also their First Appeal came to be dismissed. This is second appeal with delay of 18 days. 4. It is true that, at this stage, merits of the case are not to be considered, but at the same time appeal cannot be admitted unless case is made out by the applicants/appellants that they are entitled for further extension of period of limitation by showing sufficient cause. The reasons stated are mainly the old age and poverty. This cannot be accepted as satisfactory explanation as true. Though there are appeals after appeals provided in law, it would certainly cause prejudice to other party in whose favour the decisions have been given by both the Courts below. To sum up, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. The appeal also dismissed for non compliance of the previous order and default committed in payment of bhatta as directed. The civil application is accordingly disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09