-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1325 OF 2008 IN S. APPEAL (ST.)NO. 17723 OF 2005 Shankar Bhau Chaware .. Applicant. V/s. Annappa Babu Nayakwadi & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Y.K. Sharma for the Applicant. Mr. V.B. Rajure for the Respondent No.2. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 30th September, 2008. DATED : 30th September, 2008. DATED : 30th September, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.Rajure, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This civil application is filed for condonation of 994 days delay in preferring the above second appeal. The Application for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by filing affidavit in -reply. 3. In para 6 of the application, the applicant has -: 2 :- averred as follows : "6. The applicant, who is 60 years old could not contact his advocate in Mumbai for the purpose of filing the present Appeal. The applicant being 63 years old had fallen ill at the relevant time and therefore could not instruct his advocate in Mumbai to prefer the present Appeal. Moreover, the applicant was also facing financial constraints and could not arrange for finance to come to Mumbai and engage some advocate for the purpose of preparing the filing the present Appeal. " 4. The applicant, though has stated that he had fallen ill, has not given particulars of duration of his illness nor has annexed any medical certificate to corroborate his contention of illness. The applicant has also not stated any particular of sickness. The contentions are vague and does not inspire any confidence. In my view, the applicant cannot be said to have shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in preferring the second appeal. 5. The applicant has also stated that the financial constrains is the reason as to why he could not prefer -: 3 :- appeal within limitation. Mr. Rajure, the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard relied on the judgement of the learned single Judge of this court in the case of Kamalbai wo/ Narasaiyya Shrimal vs. Ganpat Kamalbai wo/ Narasaiyya Shrimal vs. Ganpat Kamalbai wo/ Narasaiyya Shrimal vs. Ganpat s/o. Vithalrao Gavare (2007 [1] Mh.L.J.807). s/o. Vithalrao Gavare (2007 [1] Mh.L.J.807). s/o. Vithalrao Gavare (2007 [1] Mh.L.J.807). The learned single Judge has observed that mere poverty cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Be that as it may, at the time of preferring the appeal before the lower appellate court also there was a delay. However, the same was condoned and the appeal was heard on merits by the lower appellate court. 6. The aforesaid facts show that the applicant is not diligent in prosecuting the matter. No case is made out for condonation delay for filing the appeal. 7. The application for condonation of delay in filling the appeal is dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of the condonation application, the second appeal will not survive. (R.V.MORE,J.)