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 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 741 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/05/2007 IN IA.2745/06 & IA.2746/06 IN OP.613/2000 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED KAREEM, S/O. KAVUNGAL MUHAMMED, AGED 49 YEARS, THALIKULAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- KHAIRUNNIS, D/O. NALAKATH POKKATTILLATH ABOOBACKER, KUDALIYOOR DESOM, ENGADIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No.2365/08 & Mat.Appeal No.741 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 O R D E R /J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 458 days in filing the Mat.Appeal. The petitioner/appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The impugned decree directs payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem, it is submitted. It was an ex parte order. An application was filed to set aside the ex parte order and to condone the delay in filing the same. The application to condone the delay and consequently the application to set aside the ex parte decree were dismissed. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. There is a delay of 458 days in filing this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that proceedings in execution have gone on and all that remains is confirmation of the sale. The learned counsel prays that the delay may be condoned, the appeal may be admitted and the appellant/petitioner may be granted further time to pay the C.M.Appln No.2365/08 & Mat.A.No.741/08 -2- entire amount and seek setting aside of the sale. The delay of 458 days had occurred on account of reasons beyond his control, it is submitted. 3. The respondent has entered appearance. The auction has already taken place and all that remains is confirmation of the sale, it is conceded. But, the auction purchaser has not been arrayed as a party to this appeal. The application is opposed. 4. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are not persuaded to agree that there is any sufficient reason to justify the prayer for condonation of the inordinate delay of 458 days. The petition for condonation of delay only deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall make arrangements to deposit the amount and presses his prayer for setting aside of the sale before the execution court. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that E.A.No.129/09 has been filed. His option to pursue such course shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this application. Needless to say, the petitioner can seek early disposal of the said C.M.Appln No.2365/08 & Mat.A.No.741/08 -3- application. 6. With the above observation this C.M.Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, Mat.Appeal No.741/08 shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn