ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J 1. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal, presented under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.11.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1995 thereby dismissing the petition of the appellant. 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner had filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India against the order dated 29.08.1995 passed by respondent No. 1 in an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Along with the said appeal, the appellant had also filed an application under Section 35F of the said Act with a prayer that during pendency of appeal the recovery proceedings of the sum of Rs. 28,89,901.-00 be stayed. After hearing the parties, respondent No. 1 allowed the prayer in part and directed that on payment of Rs. l0,00,000.-00 the recovery of balance amount of duty and penalty shall remain in abeyance till the pendency of the appeal. The respondent No. 1 directed to comply with the direction by 03.11.1995. The respondent No. 1 extended time further on request of the appellant. The order dated 29.08.1995, directing payment of Rs. 10,00,000.-00, was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. By elaborate order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit. This order is challenged in this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri B.G. Neema, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. Right at the threshold the counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal which was pending before respondent No. 1 has been dismissed on 08.01.1996 in default of payment as directed. He further submitted that he has filed IA.No. 322/96 for leave to amend the appeal to place on the record the subsequent event. 5. Shri Neema opposed the application on the ground that the lis, i.e. , the appeal in which the interlocutory order was passed which became the subject matter of the petition and thereafter in this Letters Patent Appeal, stands terminated and as such this appeal is rendered infructuous and deserves to be dismissed even on this short ground. 6. We do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal as also in I.A.No. 322/96 even otherwise. 6. We do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal as also in I.A.No. 322/96 even otherwise. However, as the appeal itself stands dismissed, we are not required to examine the matter in greater detail. This Letters Patent Appeal is manifestly rendered infructuous. 7. Accordingly we find that preliminary objection should be permitted to prevail. 8. In the result, we dismiss this appeal as infructuous. In view of this order no separate order is necessary on IA.No. 322/96. 9. This appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs. The appellant shall have freedom to pursue appropriate remedy against the final order passed in its appeal as may be permissible under law.