- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2723 RFA No. 592 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT SARASWATHI REDDY D/O LATE S.UPENDER REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 153, 3RD MAIN, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAHUL DEV.S.DESHAMUORE., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI D S GANESH S/O LATE D R SESHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 7, B-MAIN ROAD, HRB LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-43. 2. SRI MOHAMMAD RAFEEQ S/O LATE ALI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, 4TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-78. 3. SRI DHANPAL S/O RANGAIAH CHETTIYAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 578, 4TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-78. Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2723 RFA No. 592 of 2023 4. 4(a) SRI A.SRINIVASA SHETTY S/O ASHWATHNARAYANA SHETTY, SINCE DEAD AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SMT A S SHEELA KUMARI, W/O LATE SRINIVASA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 4(b) SRI A S SUSHANTH S/O LATE SRINIVASA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO 4/119, DHANAVANTHRI NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH MAIN, 1ST A CROSS, BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-29. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: 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 before the Court and sufficient time - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2723 RFA No. 592 of 2023 was granted to comply with the office objections. Once again the appeal was listed on 10.01.2025, 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 22.01.2025. 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 10.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4