IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 379 of 2006() ---------------------------- O.P.NO.740 OF 2004 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. SULAIMAN RAWTHER, MANAKKULANGARA MELETHIL, MULAKKUZHA MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. 2. SALMA BEEVI, W/O.SULAIMAN RAWTHER, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. AJEENA, D/O.IBRAHIM RAWTHER, MELETHEKKETHIL VEEDU, KOTTANGAL MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. 2. JALEEL, S/O.SULAIMAN RAWTHER, MANAKKULANGARA MELETHIL, MULAKKUZHA MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. (DELETED) (THE NAME OF 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 11/11/2009 IN MAT.APPEAL) ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.2275 of 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.379 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July 2010 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J Vide our earlier order dated 11/11/2009, the delay was ordered to be condoned subject to conditions. The conditions must have been complied with by 11/01/2010. The matter came up on 08/07/2010 and the learned counsel prayed for time to report whether conditions have been complied with. The certificate has not been produced as directed in the order dated 11/11/2009. Even today, when the matter came up, the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits that he has nothing to show that the conditions have been complied with. More than a period of six months has elapsed from the date specified for compliance of the conditions. It is evident that the conditions have not been complied with and the petitioner is not interested in complying with the conditions. 2. In these circumstances, the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed for non-compliance with the conditions C.M.Application No.2275 of 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.379 of 2006 2 imposed. Consequently, the Mat.Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.Application No.2275 of 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.379 of 2006 3 C.M.Application No.2275 of 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.379 of 2006 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 19/07/2010