- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3585 RFA No. 164 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED AYUB S/O LATE G.MOHAMMED IQBAL @ DADA RAFI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SMT SHABANA JABEEN W/O MOHAMMED AYUB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.01, FRASER APARTMENT, 6TH CROSS, VEERANNA GARDEN, FRASER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. MARY CHRISTINA.P.S., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. MOHAMMED YOUNUS S/O LATE G.MOHAMMED IQBAL @ DADA RAFI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.43/1, 6TH CROSS, OPPOSITE TO MARUTI PARK, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 029. 2. SMT. SHAHEEN BANU W/O LATE KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO 51, 8TH CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3585 RFA No. 164 of 2024 BENGALURU. 3. SMT YASMEEN BANU W/O LATE OBAIDUR RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/ATNO 27, 20TH MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 068. 4. SMT MUBEEN BANU W/O SHAIKH MASTAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO 01, SMS HOUSE, 4TH CROSS, OPPOSITE IBP PETROL PUMP, VI BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. 5. SMT. NASREEN BANU W/O SYED ZAHEERUDIN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/3, 2ND CROSS, ANEPALYA, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 047. 6. MOHAMMED RAFI S/O LATE G.MOHAMMED IQBAL @ DADA RAFI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO 09, 6TH CROSS, H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 & 2 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3585 RFA No. 164 of 2024 ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the appellant is not represented. When the case is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. His absence may affect the case. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before Registrar (P & H) on several dates and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the appeal was listed on 13.01.2025, on that day, finally two weeks 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 27.01.2025. The appeal is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite granting sufficient time, the appellant has not complied with the office objections. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of peremptory order dated 13.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19