1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7156 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 18021 OF 2001 Gulabsing @ Balaji Narharrao Solunke.. .. Applicant Versus 1. Sitaram S/o Bhikaji Solunke Died-through-L.Rs 1A Prayagbai W/o Sitaram Solunke and others .. .. Respondents Shri S. V. Warad, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri E. S. Murge, Advocate h/f Shri A. S. Bayas, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1B and 1D. Shri A. N. Gaddime, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondents No. 2 to 4. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 07TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Warad, learned counsel for the applicant on merits of this application for condonation of delay though on earlier date his application came to be dismissed in default. He referred para No. 3 and 4 of the application stating that his second appeal is based on many substantial questions of law, but 2 when asked he could not point out a single and prayed for time to argue on the issue of substantial question of law in case his application for condonation of delay is allowed and appeal is considered for hearing on admission. 2. Admittedly, there is delay of 114 days beyond the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed for filing second appeal. The appellant is a plaintiff and his suit as well first appeal both were dismissed. Concurrent findings have been recorded against him. It was a suit for possession of immovable property. Though appeals after appeal are provided in law, but filing is controlled by the Law of Limitation. No suit is permitted to be filed beyond the limitation, wherever the Law of Limitation applies to civil proceeding. 3. The Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, is meant for extension of period of limitation beyond the period prescribed in law but it is not automatic. Applicant is required to make out a case by stating sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, it needs to be explained though not to be proved. Time is the important dimension in every litigation and walk of life. Some amount of delay is understood when forum changes, from place to place and, therefore, in the second appeal, period mentioned as 90 days. 4. In the present case, applicant could not file this appeal because he was unemployed and had no source of income. He 3 became landless and his village Tembhurni came under rehabilitation scheme and, therefore, could not arrange for funds. The present application is opposed by the respondents. 5. The grounds are general grounds, normally appear in every application. The litigant when fighting from the stage of Trial Court to First Appellate Court ordinarily knows how much expenses he would be required for going in second appeal and the date of the judgment is also informed in advance by the First Appellate Court. The delay of 114 days is therefore, not properly explained. No case is made out for condonation of delay. Even on merits of the appeal as observed above, no case is made out. In that view of the matter, application for condonation of delay stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, the Second Appeal Stamp No. 18021 of 2001 is dismissed since barred by limitation. The civil application as well as the Second Appeal Stamp No. 18021/2001 both are disposed of accordingly. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Dec.09