IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the delay in filing an appeal must be supported by sufficient cause, and the presence of a substantial question of law is essential for entertaining a second appeal.

ORDER :

1. Instant second appeal is preferred by the appellant plaintiff aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 01.02.2017 in civil appeal No. 88/2013 (01/2012) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2 Behror, Alwar whereby first civil appeal under Section 96 CPC, filed aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 16.11.2011 in civil suit No. 154/2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Behror, Alwar was dismissed.

2. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Behror District Alwar has dismissed the civil suit No. 154/2009 for permanent injunction on 16.11.2011 filed by appellant-plaintiff after full trial.

3. Along with this appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC is filed for taking certain documents on record.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that on apprehension of dispossession and threat to encroach upon land of plaintiff, a suit for permanent injunction was filed before the trial court wherein oral evidence was submitted by the plaintiff but learned trial court and the appellate court have failed to consider the evidence on merits. He also submitted that the trial court and appellate court were of the view that no documents were filed in support of claim of the plaintiff therefore no case is made out. He submitted that to establish prima facie case, the appellant is not required to file any document but the trial court misconstrued the legal position. He further submitted that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is filed for taking certain documents on record and after taking these documents on record the appellant be allowed for additional evidence to prove his title from documents. He also submitted that there was a delay of 579 days in filing this appeal and to substantiate the reasons of delay, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed along with documents to support the claim that appellant got injured due to accident and he remained hospitalized and further bed ridden for a long period therefore able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent on the ground that instant second appeal is preferred from concurrent findings of the court below and no question of law can be framed for adjudication in second appeal therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He also submitted that appellant has failed to show any sufficient ground for taking additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on record. He also submitted that the documents submitted by appellant are not authenticated legal documents therefore the opportunity of additional evidence cannot be granted to appellant. He also pointed out that the appeal was dismissed on 01.02.2017 and alleged accident happened on 07.10.2017 but days before aforesaid accident and afterwards no specific reasons were assigned by appellant for seeking condonation of delay.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. A perusal of record indicated that a suit for permanent injunction was filed on the basis of continuous possession since 13.11.1997 but the suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 16.11.2011 though oral evidence was produced by appellant plaintiff. Aggrieved from aforesaid, an appeal under Section 96 of CPC was filed before the Additional District Judge and same was dismissed on 01.02.2017.

8. A perusal of report indicated that this appeal is delayed by 579 days though an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed for condonation of delay on ground of accident. According to medical documents, first prescription was of 04.10.2017. Thereafter another certificate on record to indicate that since 07.10.2017, Balwant Singh was in emergency condition but according to Shanti Mukund Hospital, he was admitted from 11.10.2017 to 14.10.2017. Herein no other medical certificate is available to indicate that the appellant remained in medical tr