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 OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 561 of 2008(A) ----------------------------- OP.231/2005 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JOSEPH VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE KATHAVANA VEEDU, MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. K.J.VARGHESE, F/O.JOSEPH VARGHESE KATHAVANA VEEDU, MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT: --------------- SUSY, D/O.CHINNAMMA KALATHOOR MELATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU KARUVATTA MURI, PERIEINGANAD VILLAGE ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== C.M. APPLICATION NO. 1718 OF 2008 & MAT APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ORDER/JUDGMENT Basant,J. The C.M. application is to condone the delay of 834 days in filing a Matrimonial appeal. The appeal in turn challenges a direction for payment of amounts and return of ornaments. The earlier Bench which dealt with the matter had attempted a settlement and we find that in the order dated 26-8-2008 details of the said settlement are specified. Subsequently, it is submitted that the appellants/petitioners have not complied with any of the terms of settlement. Thereafter, there is no appearance also for them, it is submitted. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation for the appellants. We are satisfied that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting this appeal. The delay is gross and enormous – 834 days. No sufficient reasons Mat appeal 561/2008 -2- are shown to condone the delay. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petition for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and the Mat Appeal consequently deserves to be rejected as barred by limitation. Hence, the C.M. application is dismissed and the Mat appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.