1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9650 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 16888 OF 2007 1. Harishchandra s/o. Tukaram Kulkarni (Gade) and another. - - - Applicants. versus 1. Jansing s/o. Ratan Aade and others. - - - Respondents Shri M. L. Dharashive, Advocate holding for Shri Y. S. Dharashive, Advocate for applicants. CORAM: N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 4th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. Heard Shri M. L. Dharashive, learned Counsel for the appellants/ applicants. Applicants Nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs who are real brothers and they had filed suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants Nos.1 to 4 - present respondents in respect of suit land admeasuring 1 acre 68 gunthas out of survey No. 35/B of village Banegaon, taluka Ausa, district Latur. Their suit 2 came to be decreed for perpetual injunction by judgment dated 8/12/2005 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa. However, the said judgment was set aside and quashed in appeal numbered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006 preferred by the respondents/ defendants. Thus, the appeal was allowed with costs. The said judgment and decree dated 27-11-2007 passed by the appellate Court has been further challenged by the plaintiffs in this Court. 3. While prosecuting second appeal, admittedly, there is delay of 196 days. The reason stated is poverty and old age. The appellant was also suffering from chiken gunia and, therefore, he was unable to approach the Counsel. 4. On this ground, the appellants have filed application for condonation of delay of 196 days purporting to be under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Shri Dharashive, learned Counsel for the applicants, pointed out that trial Court was pleased to decree the suit and order perpetual injunction for protection of 1 acre 38 gunthas i.e. the suit land out of survey No. 35/B admeasuring 16 acres 15 gunthas situated at village Banegaon, taluka Ausa, district Latur. 3 5. Learned Counsel Shri Dharashive took me through judgment of the trial Court and so also judgment of the 1st appellate Court which is impugned in second appeal before this Court. He admitted the old survey of the disputed land of which part and parcel was acquired by the Government and some observations are also recorded by both the Courts. Therefore, the 1st appellate Court refused to grant injunction. However, he contended that the respondents were never in possession of the suit land acquired by the Government, and as such, they have no right to claim the same any more. 6. As stated above, the appeal of the respondents was allowed. Shri Dharashive, learned Counsel for the applicants, urged to condone the delay for the reasons mentioned above. 7. Perused the application for condonation of delay. It is true that at this stage the merits and the finding recorded need not be considered for deciding the application for condonation of delay and it is to be decided on its own merits. There is delay of 196 days which is no doubt inordinate delay and has not been properly 4 explained. The grounds stated are not properly explained giving details and cannot be considered as sufficient cause preventing them from filing appeal in time. Hence, civil application stands dismissed. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) pnk/ca965007