JUDGMENT Shri Kutumble, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay has been caused because of the fraud played by the clerk of the advocate Zamil Ahmed, who has explained the delay by giving evidence on oath in the Court. On account of that, Shri Kutumble submits that the delay needs to be condoned. He pointed that when the first appeal was filed in the District Court, present appellant was minor and, therefore, he is entitled to file the second appeal after attaining majority. He argued further that keeping in view that the appellant was minor when the delay has caused, the said delay needs to be condoned. This is the sum and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant by Shri Kutumble. Shri Chajed, appearing for Resp. No.3, vehemently submitted that second appeal is not maintainable at all. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ajit Singh v. Bhagwanlal reported in 1989 MPLJ-6. Shri Chajed submitted that for the reasons best known to the appellant, the said clerk of Zamil advocate has not been examined. He pointed towards the cross examination of ZamB Ahmed advocate and submitted that the reasons given for explaining the delay are vague and not sufficient. He submitted that this appeal be dismissed as not maintainable. Shri Kutumble, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Balkrishan v. Tulsabai reported in AIR 1987 MP 120 . So far as the evidence adduced by the side of appellant in respect of circumstance explaining delay is concerned, the evidence suffers from infirmities which have been rightly pointed by the 1st Appellate Court in the judgment. Learned advocate did not produce his diary wherein dates of appearance in the Court have been mentioned. He was unable to tell as what was the amount given to him by Pratapsingh for the purpose of court fees, expenses of typing, etc. and the Advocate fee. The application, submitted by Zamil Ahmed to the District Judge for the purpose of cancellation of licence, has not been also produced. I find no perversity in the conclusion drawn by the 1st Appellate Court in respect of this while not condoning the delay. The judgment of this Court in Balkishan v. Tulsabai (supra) is a judgment pronounced by the Single Bench of this Court. I find no perversity in the conclusion drawn by the 1st Appellate Court in respect of this while not condoning the delay. The judgment of this Court in Balkishan v. Tulsabai (supra) is a judgment pronounced by the Single Bench of this Court. However, the judgment in the matter of Ajit Singh v. Bhagwan (supra) is the judgment pronounced by the Division Bench of this Court in the year 1989. Further, it is important to note that Paragraph 15 of the decision of Division Bench judgment of this Court has made it clear by observing: "For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Munshi Singh (supra) has not decided the law correctly. We accept the view expressed in Balkishan's case that second appeal is not competent when the lower appellate Court has dismissed appellant's application purporting to be made under O.41 R. 3 (a) C.P.C. read with S. 5 of the Limitation Act and that the position would be same, whether or not any decree was drawn thereafter." Thus, in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ajitsingh v. Bhagwan (supra) though the appellant was minor at the relevant time, this appeal will have to be dismissed. The appeal stands dismissed as not competent.