ORDER : Heard learned counsel, Mr. S Mahajan for the appellant petitioners and learned counsel, Mr. BN Majumdar for the respondentO.P. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner prayed for condoning the delay of 115 days in preferring the connected second appeal. 3. It is submitted that the judgment of the first appellate court was pronounced on 28.03.2016 and the decree was prepared on 07.04.2016. The appellant-petitioners applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 04.04.2016 and got it on 10.05.2016. From 10.05.2016 to 24.06.2016 time was taken to obtain view of the learned conducting lawyer about filing of the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant-petitioners entrusted another learned counsel, Mr. A.L. Saha to conduct the case on 28.07.2016. 4. After going through the records, Mr. Saha found that some relevant records were not available and so again he instructed the appellant-petitioners to obtain certified copy of some records and accordingly an application was made for certified copy on 28.09.2016 and those were received on 24.11.2016 and thereby there was a total delay of 242 days from the date of judgment. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan that there was no negligence or inaction on the part of the appellant-petitioners. According to Mr. Mahajan, the limitation for filing a second appeal as prescribed by law is 90 days and for obtaining certified copy another 36 days, i.e. total 126 days will be excluded from the total period. He has also submitted that to obtain copies and to take the lawyers view the delay has been caused. 6. A written objection has been filed on behalf of the respondent-O.P. contending that the delay suffers from inaction, negligence and lack of bonafide. The appellant-Insurance Co. took its own time in a dilly dally manner and so the application seeking condonation shall be dismissed. It is submitted by Mr. Majumjdar that otherwise also the appeal has no merit since the appellant is a tenant and the respondentO.P is the owner of the land which has been decided by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. 7. I cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Mahajan that the petitioner will get advantage of both 90 days and the period spent for taking certified copy in addition thereto, and, thereby, it will extend the period of limitation to 126 days. 8. 7. I cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Mahajan that the petitioner will get advantage of both 90 days and the period spent for taking certified copy in addition thereto, and, thereby, it will extend the period of limitation to 126 days. 8. The period of 90 days limitation has been prescribed to file an appeal definitely taking into consideration the time to be taken for obtaining certified copy or for collecting any other document/material. These 90 days does not amount to enjoy as leisure by the parties to an appeal. 90 days limitation means the lis is to be filed within the period of 90 days. If that cannot be filed within 90 days, for exceeding the period of 90 days, the party defaulting has to explain the delay with sufficient reason. 9. One is expected to obtain the certified copy within the period of limitation itself. If someone applies for the certified copy within the period of limitation but does not get it or gets it after the expiry of the limitation period, he may file the appeal assigning the reason for delay. But if one applies within the period of limitation and gets it within the period of limitation, it is expected that he will be filing the appeal within the period of limitation itself. This period of getting certified copy will not enlarge the period of limitation by adding the period unless for the supply of certified copy it took time beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law. 10. Time is a determining factor for deciding any issue/dispute between the parties. By lapse of time a party loses his right to proceed against the other over a claim. A right accrues in favour of the other side as soon as the time prescribed by law expires. So law has prescribed that the delay should be explained with “sufficient cause”. 11. In the present case, the impugned judgment was passed on 28.03.2016. Application for certified copy was filed on 04.04.2016 and the petitioners got it on 10.05.2016. It was well within the period of limitation that they got the certified copy and there was enough time in hand to prepare the appeal and to file it before the expiry of the period of limitation of 90 days from the date of judgment. Application for certified copy was filed on 04.04.2016 and the petitioners got it on 10.05.2016. It was well within the period of limitation that they got the certified copy and there was enough time in hand to prepare the appeal and to file it before the expiry of the period of limitation of 90 days from the date of judgment. Nothing is stated in the petition as to why during the prescribed period of limitation the appeal could not be filed. The simple reason assigned is that the view of the conducting lawyer was obtained after obtaining certified copy of judgment and it took time up to 24.06.2016. Thereafter, it was entrusted to another lawyer and he took his own time and advised to obtain copy of some other documents and those were received on 24.11.2016. Such explanation is not at all conceivable from a diligent litigant. The submission of learned counsel, Mr. Mahajan that the period spent for taking certified copy will be in addition to 90 days is beyond prescription of law. No doubt a party will get the period spent for obtaining certified copy but it must be in a given circumstance. If the application for certified copy of judgment was made after the period of limitation, the entire period from the date of passing of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal shall have to be explained excluding the period spent for taking certified copy. If application for certified copy was made within the period of limitation and the copy received after the period of limitation then automatically the appellant/petitioner will get the benefit of it since the period was spent for certified copy. 12. Once certified copy was obtained within the prescribed period of limitation and there was enough time to file the appeal but it was not filed, then the appellant/petitioner has to explain with sufficient cause the period which was spent after the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant/petitioner cannot get 126 days as the period of limitation for filing the appeal and therefore, the submission of learned counsel Mr. Mahajan cannot be accepted since it is beyond the prescription of law. 13. In the present case, the judgment was passed on 28.03.2016. The appellant was supposed to file the appeal before 28.06.2016. He got the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 10.05.2016. Mahajan cannot be accepted since it is beyond the prescription of law. 13. In the present case, the judgment was passed on 28.03.2016. The appellant was supposed to file the appeal before 28.06.2016. He got the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 10.05.2016. He had more than a month’s time to file the appeal but that has not been filed and there is no reasonable explanation. From the period of getting the certified copy, i.e. 10.05.2016 till the date of filing the appeal, i.e. on 25.11.2016, the appellant was just moving from lawyer to lawyer to get opinion of the lawyer and to prepare the appeal. This cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause. 14. Delay is always to be considered within a liberal approach so that a genuine grievance is not frustrated on technical ground of limitation. 15. I have also gone through the impugned judgments of the courts below. The petitioner was a tenant under an agreement with one Harimohan Saha. The plaintiff, i.e. respondent O.P. herein is the grandson of that Harimohan Saha who claimed that Harimohan Saha gifted the tenanted premises to the plaintiff. The trial court decided that the plaintiff has got title over the suit land but dismissed the suit on some other technical grounds that original owner was not made a party. The defendant, i.e. the appellant-petitioner herein being a tenant cannot challenge the ownership of the titleholder. So the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly decided the title in favour of the appellant. The original owner has not been brought on record and the defendant though pleaded that they paid the rent to the original owner but the owner has not been examined as witness by them. So under such circumstances, I find no merit to admit the second appeal. 16. The petition seeking condonation of delay since not supported by sufficient reason, rather it suffers from negligence, inaction as well as lack of bona fide, therefore, the petition seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed.