( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10589 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 16861 OF 2008 Yasin s/o Yakubsab Shivniwale APPLICANT VERSUS Sk. Habiboddin s/o Amiroddin and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.C. Patil, advocate holding for Mr. U.B. Bondar, advocate for the applicant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. 2. The application is for condonation of delay. The delay is of 191 days. According to the applicant (appellant), he came to know about the impugned judgement on 29-01-2008 and immediately submitted application for certified copy. He could not receive the certified copy because he was in the mourning period ( 2 ) due to death of a close relative. He collected the certified copy on 23rd February, 2008 and contacted his advocate to file the appeal. 3. What appears from the averments in the application is that the applicant could not get knowledge about the impugned judgement delivered by the first Appellate Court on 19-11-2007. It is difficult to believe that from 19-11-2007 till 29-01-2008, the applicant had no knowledge about the impugned judgement and decree. He vaguely stated that due to death of a close relative, he was entitled to obtain the certified copy. Which of the close relative ? No explanation is coming forth. Why was the mourning period of more than three weeks ? No explanation is coming forth. Needless to say, the grounds stated in the application are not substantiated by giving proper details of the cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay cannot be regarded as condonable in as much as there is no sufficient cause as required under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Apart from the above, it may be gathered that the suit for perpetual injunction came to be decreed in favour of the respondent No.1 and the decree is ( 3 ) confirmed by the first Appellate Court. In the face of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the second appeal itself appears to be without any substantial question of law. Under the circumstances, the application as well as the appeal are dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca10589-08