ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.10890/2013, an application for condonation of delay. 2. This second appeal, filed by the defendant/appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.1-A/2013, by the Third Additional District Judge, Damoh (M.P.), arising out of judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.25-A/2005 by Civil Judge Class I, Hatta, district Damoh, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. 3. Briefly stated, plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant/appellant, which was decreed on 24.12.2005. An appeal against the same was preferred along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected by the appellate Court, consequently the appeal under section 96 of the CPC also stood dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court in second appeal. Along with this memo of appeal, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has also been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant submits that due to lack of legal knowledge, the first appeal as well as the second appeal could not be filed in time. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this application, stating that it is filed with a delay of 809 days and no sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal in time and prays for dismissal of the same. 6. It is evident from the record that this second appeal was filed with a delay of 809 days without assigning any reason why the appeal could not be filed in time. As per the appellant, his cousin has opined to prefer a review application for reviewing the the order passed in the first appeal but unfortunately, his counsel did not file any review and thereafter he contacted his present counsel after summer vacation in the last week of June, 2015. Thus with a delay of 809 days, this second appeal was filed. 7. It is evident from the record that the appellant had contested the suit. He was very well aware of the decree passed against him. Against the decree dated 24.10,2005, he filed a first appeal in the year 2010, after a delay of about 4 years, 9 months and 11 days. 7. It is evident from the record that the appellant had contested the suit. He was very well aware of the decree passed against him. Against the decree dated 24.10,2005, he filed a first appeal in the year 2010, after a delay of about 4 years, 9 months and 11 days. Since no sufficient reason was shown before the first appellate Court, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and resultantly, the first appeal also stood dismissed. 8. It is apparent that the first appeal was filed with a delay of more than four years, but instead of learning from this mistake, the defendant/appellant has filed this second appeal with a delay of 809 days. 9. In the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation and another [ (2010)5 SCC 459 ], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “14. ....The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the Courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.” 10. In the present case, no sufficient reason for delay has been given by the appellant. An inordinate delay can be condoned, if the explanation offered is found to be bonafide and satisfactory, but if the explanation offered is found to be lacking in bona fide, same cannot be condoned even though the delay is short. In the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant is not found bona fide and sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal, hence the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. 11. The I.A. No.10890/2015 filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, this second appeal also stands dismissed.