1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3388 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 15594 OF 2004 1. Omprakash S/o Radhakishan Agrawal and another .. Applicants Versus 1. Jagannath S/o Radhakishan Agrawal and others .. Respondents Shri P. S. Bhandari, Advocate h/f Shri D. S. Bharuka, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondents No. 5 and 9. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri P. S. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants. This is an application for condonation of delay which came to be filed after expiry of period of limitation and there is delay of 146 days. Hence this application for further extension of period of limitation prescribed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, thereby praying to condone the delay of 146 days. There should be sufficient cause shown to the Court admitting the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The limitation prescribed 2 is of 90 days for second appeal in the High Court. 2. It is true that, no proof is required, but there must be satisfactory explanation that, there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellants from preferring the appeal on time. I heard Shri Bhandari, the learned counsel for the applicants. Perused the application for condonation of delay. The reason given is that, the two brothers have earlier filed civil suit for redemption or in the alternative for specific performance in the year 1971 vide Regular Civil Suit No. 38 of 1971 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Nandurbar and further upon dismissal of suit preferred first appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 222/1990 before the Additional District Judge, Nandurbar. They had a dispute between them regarding sharing or bearing the expenses for the second appeal, and therefore, could not file this appeal on time. There was difference of opinion between them and as such the delay occasioned for preparing, drafting and giving instructions to the advocate concerned for filing the second appeal. 3. Thereafter, it is also noticed that, the present application for condonation of delay came to be dismissed for non payment of bhatta and it seems that, both the brothers are still have differences on bearing expenditure of the appeal. If this state of affair continues, then there is no point to hear their dispute against a third party respondent unless both the plaintiffs/applicants have one view in them. Though, at this stage Courts does not go into the merits of the case, but hearing is limited to the reason or ground stated as sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In my 3 opinion, the reason quoted is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. The plaintiffs have lost in both the Courts below. Their case was heard and decided on merits and it was to the knowledge of the appellant brothers and therefore, they should have taken early decision whether appeal should be filed or not. There are appeals after appeals provided in law as procedural remedy, but those should be availed within prescribed period of limitation, because it would cause prejudice to the opposite party who has won the case in both the Courts below. Therefore, for admitting the second appeal the criteria is strict. Both the parties have already given hearing in two Courts. As such, the civil application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. The civil application for condonation of delay stands dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09