Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13975 (KAR)

MRS. NOORJAN v. MRS. FYROZ JAN

RFA/142/2023 · 2025-01-17

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1990 RFA No. 142 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. NOORJAN W/O FIYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. MR. FAYAZ AHMED S/O ABDUL AMEED, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 164, SHIVAJI LANE, SHAMBUPALYA, KALASIPALAYAM, NEAR KALASIPALAYAM, POLICE STATION, BENGALURU -560 002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. FYROZ JAN W/O AAJAS, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. MR. ALI @ ROMI S/O AJAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. MR.MUDDASIR S/O ANWARD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 4. MR SYED NOOR S/O SASBI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1990 RFA No. 142 of 2023 ALL ARE R/AT: NO.44, LALA'S BUILDING, 7TH CROSS, BESIDE RANI SARALA DEVI SCHOOL, BEHIND POST OFFICE, NEAR MAADAN PARK, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU -560 011. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA STATE SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD, NO.55, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU -560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREE HARSHA.A.K., ADVOCATE C/R1 & 2) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 06.01.2025, on that day, when the case was called, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. However, finally a week’s time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the office was directed to list the appeal under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non- compliance of office objections’ on 17.01.2025. The appeal is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite granting sufficient time, the appellants have not complied with - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1990 RFA No. 142 of 2023 the office objections. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of peremptory order dated 06.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9