1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10411 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 7472 OF 2007 Vishwanath s/o. Tulshiram Dhande - - Applicant versus 1. Murlidhar s/o. Rambhau Dhande and others. - - Respondents Shri S. K. Naikwade, Advocate for applicant. Shri A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 6th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. Heard Shri Naikwade for the applicant and Shri Gaikwad for respondent No.1. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Admittedly, there is a delay of 1145 days for filing second appeal in this Court. Applicant/ appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 319 of 1984 for partition and separate 2 possession of suit land, which according to him, is ancestral property. The said suit was dismissed by order dated 21-3-1987. Later on, applicant had also preferred first Appeal numbered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1987. It also came to be dismissed by the order dated 1-11-2003 passed by learned District Judge, Beed. 3. The present second appeal came to be filed on 19-4-2007 and thus, delay occasioned for 1145 days. The reason is given in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Civil Application for condonation of delay. Perused the said application. The ground taken is the old age of the applicant who is now 75 years old and is bed ridden. He filed medical certificate (Exhibit A) on record that he was admitted in the hospital. The relevant certificate is dated 9-3-2005. Perused the said Certificate of Dr. Lav Pansambal dated 9-3-2005 who was treating the appellant and the appellant was under his treatment since 5-1-2004. It is not disputed that appellant being old, he filed suit at the age of 55 years and also prosecuted first Appeal in the year 1987. The grounds of old age and illness alone would not be sufficient unless it is explained properly. Appeals after appeals though provided in law cannot be entertained unless the same is preferred in time as per the period of limitation prescribed under the 3 Limitation Act, 1963. The proceedings would certainly cause hardship to the other side and in present case, opposite party's case was not only believed but accepted by both the Courts below. Consequently, plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed on merit, so also his appeal was also dismissed on merits after hearing both the sides. Section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with the subject of condonation of delay in the matter of appeals and applications. It provides extension of prescribed period in order to get such appeal or application admitted even after the prescribed period if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause of preparing appeal or make application within such period. Therefore, the old age which is natural and continuous illness, the ground taken without giving detailed account as to what prevented applicant for not preferring appeal even beyond the period of limitation prescribed cannot be attended and, therefore, has not been taken into consideration. As such, the application is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed and upon consideration of the record, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) pnk/ca1041109