ORDER 1. Heard on IA No. 12780/05, which is for seeking condo-nation of delay of about 283 days. 2. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate that the appellant is aged 77 years of age and he was not in good and sound health and remained ill from January 2005 to 15.10.2005. Thereafter, he applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree on 21.10.2005, which was delivered on 8.11.2005. Since the appellant was further ill from 5.11.2005 to 19.11.2005, he visited Gwalior on 21.11.2005 and thereafter immediately preferred the appeal. 3. Shri D.D. Bansal, leaned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the application. He contended that the theory of illness is wrongly mentioned in the application. Particulars of ailment are not disclosed neither in the application nor in the affidavit. No medical papers are placed on record in support of the alleged ailment. Moreover, appellant submitted application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree on 19.11.2004, which was delivered on 3.12.2004. He has annexed certified copy of the application submitted on 19.11.2004 for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree. 4. On perusal it is found that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree annexed to the memo of appeal was issued on 3.12.2004, whereas application for obtaining such certified copy was submitted on 19.11.2004. Thus, it is totally incorrect to say that the application for certified copy was submitted for the first time on 21.10.2005. 5. It is contended by Shri D.D. Bansal, learned Advocate that delay has been caused deliberately; firstly in order to seek dismissal of SA No. 65/09 and; secondly to oppose the delivery of possession, which has been directed by the Court below by way of aforesaid SA bearing 65/09. 6. On consideration, contention of the respondent's learned counsel is found to have substance. Appellant has suppressed in his application (IA No. 12780/ 05) about having obtained the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree at earlier stage vide application dated 19.11.2004. He has sought condo-nation on the basis of certified copy allegedly applied for on 21.10.2005 and received on 8.11.2005. Impugned judgment and decree was pronounced on 3.11.2004, whose certified copy was issued on 3.12.2004. He has sought condo-nation on the basis of certified copy allegedly applied for on 21.10.2005 and received on 8.11.2005. Impugned judgment and decree was pronounced on 3.11.2004, whose certified copy was issued on 3.12.2004. Thus, the limitation for submitting second appeal in any case was upto March 2005, Certified copy annexed to the memo of appeal was issued on 3.12.2004, which was available with the appellant. Thus, the appellant having certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was in a position to prefer appeal. There being no particulars of ailment or medical papers on record, it is not accepted that appellant was prevented in any manner [Tom filing second appeal. 7. In the result, I do not find existence of any sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of Limitation Act. IA No. 12780/05 is hereby dismissed. Appeal is also therefore dismissed as barred by limitation.