- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3587 RFA No. 218 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. 218 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DR. ZARINA ISAAC W/O LATE DR. BENJAMIN ISAAC, AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, 2. SRI PETER ISAAC S/O LATE DR. BENJAMIN ISAAC, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SRI. PAUL ISAAC S/O LATE DR. BENJAMIN ISAAC, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 4. DR. SHIREN ISAAC D/O LATE DR. BENJAMIN ISAAC, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT P.B.NO. 08, SRI. M.VISHVESWARAIAH EXTENSION, NH 207, HOSKOTE TOWN - 562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK JAIN S/O SAMPATH LAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MARKET ROAD, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3587 RFA No. 218 of 2024 HOSKOTE TOWN - 562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DIST. 2. MARAPPA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA, MAJOR, R/O KANNUR HALLI, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. 3. DASHARATH S/O PILLACHIKKANNA, MAJOR, R/AT JINNAGARA VILLAGE, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. …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 When the case is called, the appellants are 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3587 RFA No. 218 of 2024 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 appellants have not complied with the office objections. It appears that the appellants are 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.: 21