1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 930 OF 2003 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 24441 OF 2002 1. Radhakrishan S/o Vishwanath Kulkarni and another .. Applicants Versus 1. Dharmaraj S/o Bhawanishankar Thigale died through L.R.s and another .. Respondents Shri H. V. Tinger, Advocate h/f Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicants. The Respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 served - absent. Shri G. K. Thigale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri H. V. Tingar, advocate holding for Shri C. R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Thigale, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. This civil application is for condonation of delay of 2336 days purported to be under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, which reads for extension of period of limitation beyond the period prescribed in law. It can only 2 be considered if there is sufficient cause shown to the satisfaction of the Court, that appellant was prevented from preferring the appeal before the period of limitation expires as prescribed in law. 2. It is true that, the grounds taken and reasons stated requires no proof, but it must be explained though appeals after appeals are provided as procedure in law, but person aggrieved by any order or decree shall take recourse to the appellate forum within a period of limitation is the requirement of the Law of Limitation. Section 5 provides room or concession for admitting appeal even beyond the period of limitation, but the delay has to be explained for further extension. 3. The application is strongly opposed by the respondent No. 2. 4. The original suit is filed by the plaintiff/appellant for specific performance against Dharmaraj Bhavanishankar and one Tukaram, the defendant No. 1 happens to be brother-in-law of the plaintiff as told. One of the reason stated is that, there was talk of compromise going on between the parties as the same is denied by the respondent No. 2. In para No. 3 of the application one more ground of poverty is taken showing inability to file appeal within the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed in law before this Court. Upon consideration of record and after hearing both the sides I am not satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay. 5. The appellants who are the original plaintiffs, whose suit was 3 decreed by the Trial Court, however, in first appeal by the defendants, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed and the appeal was allowed. Shri Thigale, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 pointed out the transaction is held not proved and more over it was observed that the suit was barred by limitation. 6. It is true that, at this stage no merits or the findings are to be considered while deciding the application of condonation of delay. As observed by me above the delay of 2336 days is a period which cannot be considered for extension of period of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 by condoning such delay. The applicant has not made out the case, consequently, the application stands dismissed. The applicant/appellant is entitled for refund of court fees as per rules. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09