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 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 77 of 2007() --------------------------- OP.35/2004 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT --------------------------------- VARUGHESE @ KUTTACHAN,S/O LATE MATHEW, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, THURUTHY P.O., VASHAPPALLY, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- BEENA JOHN, KALAPURACKAL VEEDU, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O.,MALLAPPALLY, THIRUVALLA, PATHENAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No.326 OF 2007 & Mat.Appeal No. 77 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 O R D E R /J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petition to condone the delay was allowed as per order dated 9.10.2007 in C.M.Application No.326/2007 subject to conditions. The said condition - payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- has not been complied with, submits the learned counsel for the respondent. There is no representation for the appellant/ petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order impugned in this appeal has already been satisfied by the appellant and he has produced before this Court a copy of the order dated 8.6.2009 in E.P.No.173/2008 in O.P.No.35/2004. 2. Inference is irresistible, in these circumstances, that the appellant/petitioner does not want to prosecute the petition for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal. This petition for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal are in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn