JUDGMENT: This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 2008 passed by learned District Judge, Koderma in Title Appeal no.37 of 2007, whereby the appellants' appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation . 2. The short ground taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that learned lower appellate court has committed grave error in not considering the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act and rejecting the appellants' petition as time barred due to delay of 202 days. 3. The defendants are the appellants. The short fact of the case is that the plaintiffs had filed Partition Suit claiming their share in the suit land. The suit was dismissed by learned Subordinate Judge -I, Koderma. Against the said judgment of the Subordinate Judge-I, the plaintiffs had preferred Title Appeal no.58 of 1991 before learned District Judge, Koderma. The said title appeal after hearing the parties was allowed and the decree passed by learned court below was set aside. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed on contest with cost. 4. The defendants, who are the appellants in the instant appeal, had preferred Second Appeal no.72 of 1999 against the judgment and decree of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Koderma. The second appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Koderma. The suit, thereafter, placed for final disposal before learned Sub-Judge-I, Koderma on 14.2.207 in presence of the Advocates of both the parties. On that day, the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner carving out separate takta and allotting share to the parties was confirmed directing preparation of final decree. The final decree was prepared, sealed and signed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Koderma. The defendants-appellants, thereafter, preferred appeal against the said final decree after delay of 202 days. A petition under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC was filed praying for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 5. The impugned order/judgment dated 22.1.2008 has been passed by learned District Judge, Koderma holding that the appellants were not able to explain the delay of 202 days in not filing appeal and rejected the application filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC. Learned lower appellate court consequently also dismissed the appeal holding the same hopelessly time barred. 6. Mr. The impugned order/judgment dated 22.1.2008 has been passed by learned District Judge, Koderma holding that the appellants were not able to explain the delay of 202 days in not filing appeal and rejected the application filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC. Learned lower appellate court consequently also dismissed the appeal holding the same hopelessly time barred. 6. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailing the said order/judgment of learned District Judge and submitted that the said order is bad for non-consideration of all the relevant aspects and non-application of judicial mind. Learned court below has failed to consider the circumstances explained by the appellants and arbitrarily held that the delay of 202 days has not been explained by the appellants. He further submitted that against the report of the Pleader Commissioner, the appellants had preferred objection, which was rejected by learned court below. Against the said order, the plaintiffs had filed writ petition being W.P.(C) NO.3609 of 2005. In view of the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioners had not preferred appeal against the final decree. Since the appellants were prosecuting bonafide in the said writ jurisdiction, the said circumstance should have been considered by learned court below. Having not done so, learned lower appellate court has committed an error holding that the appellants were not able to explain the delay of 202 days. 7. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contested this appeal. It has been, inter alia, stated that the instant appeal has been filed under wrong legal notion and there is absolutely no ground in this appeal involving any substantial question of law. The instant appeal has been filed only in order to put the respondents to unnecessary loss and harassment. Learned counsel submitted that section 14 of the Limitation Act has absolutely no application in the instant appeal. The writ petition was not filed against the final decree and pendency of writ petition does not constitute any ground falling within the ambit of section 14. Learned lower appellate court has discussed every aspect and thoroughly considered the ground taken for explaining the delay in filing appeal and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants failed to show any cause or the circumstances under which they were prevented from filing appeal within time. The order/judgment is well discussed and supported by reasons. Learned lower appellate court has discussed every aspect and thoroughly considered the ground taken for explaining the delay in filing appeal and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants failed to show any cause or the circumstances under which they were prevented from filing appeal within time. The order/judgment is well discussed and supported by reasons. There is no error in the order/judgment warranting interference in the second appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record. I have also perused the impugned order/judgment of learned court below. Learned lower appellate court has fully discussed the ground taken for condonation of delay and has recorded the reason for not accepting the explanation. The appellants had taken two fold grounds: that the matter was pending in different courts, which caused delay in filing appeal and that the appellants were suffering from serious ailment due to which they could not file appeal within time. Learned lower appellate court has rejected the ground of illness observing that there were six defendants-appellants and the plea that they were ailing seriously at the same time is unbelievable. Moreover, there was no medical papers or prescriptions in support of the said ground. So far as pendency of the other proceedings in different courts is concerned, learned court below has held and even the appellants have fairly conceded before this Court that no proceeding was pending anywhere against the final decree against which Title Appeal no.37 of 2007 was preferred in the court below. 9. The impugned order/judgment of learned court below is thoroughly discussed and well considered. Section 14 of the Limitation Act has no application as there was no proceeding pending anywhere against the final decree against which the appeal was preferred in learned court below. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground made out in this second appeal giving rise to any substantial question of law. 11. This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.