- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3310 MFA No. 200358 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200358 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: S.S. SAYEED S/O LATE SYED ALI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER AND R T I WORKER, R/O: H.NO.EWS-146, K.H.B.COLONY SHANTII NAGAR, MSK MILL ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMCHANDRA K, ADVOCATE, (ABSENT) AND: 1. THE STATE, THROUGH ITS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI – 585 102. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI DIVISION, KALABURGI – 585 102. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052. 4. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC MSK MILL ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 103. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3310 MFA No. 200358 of 2024 5. ANJUMA TARAQQI-E-URDU HIND (BRANCH), KHAJA BANDANAWAZ, AIWAN-E-URDU, OPP: KBN HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 102. 6. DR.SYED SHAH KHUSRO HUSSAINI, MUTAWALLI AND SAJJADE NASHIN, DARGA SHAREEF HAZARATH KHAJA BANDANAWAZ (SUNNI), BADEPUR ROZA (B), KALABURAGI – 585 104. 7. RAGHAVENDRA S/O KASHINATH MAILAPUR, AMBIZIONE INFRASTRUCTURES, 3RD FLOOR GOLD HUB, COMMERCIAL BUILDING, OPPOSITE KBN HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN MIS.NO.1/2022 AND O.S.NO.12/2021 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL KALABURAGI DIVISION, KALABURAGI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2023 IN MISC.NO.1 OF 2022 BY RESTORING THE O.S.NO.12/2021 AND GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CONTEST THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3310 MFA No. 200358 of 2024 2. Matter was listed for non-compliance of office objections for 4th time. There is no compliance despite sufficient opportunity. Same would indicate that appellant is not diligent in pursuing appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4