- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4578 RFA No. 1442 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1442 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O LATE THIPPU SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ASHRAFULLA S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528. 2. SMT. RAMZABI W/O GANNI SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT 288, CHANNAKKI HONDA, BHOVI COLONY, DAVANAGERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 528. 3. KUM.FATHMABI D/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4578 RFA No. 1442 of 2021 4. SRI PAKEER SAB S/O LATE HONNUR SAB, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 5. SRI TIPPU SAB S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Siddappa., counsel on behalf of Sri.D.P.Mahesh., for the appellant has appeared in person and submits that short accommodation may be granted to comply with the office objections. This Court is not inclined to granted time. The reason is plain. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before the Registrar (P & H) and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the appeal was listed before the Court and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Once again the appeal was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4578 RFA No. 1442 of 2021 listed on 24.01.2025, on that day, 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 31.01.2025. 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 24.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6