- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1489 RFA No. 1368 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1368 OF 2020 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. 2. SRI P.RAVEENDRA S/O LATE H.N.PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, REPRESENTED BYNHIS GPA HOLDER SMT SADGUNA CHANDRAKALA, SMT SADGUNA CHANDRAKALA, W/O SREERAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT NO.36, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HEBBALBINNY MILL ROAD, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 032. 3. SMT PRAMEELA, W/O LATE H.P.JAYADEV, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SMT J.SUSHMA D/O LATE H.P.JAYADEV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. SRI DEEPAK S/O LATE H P JAYADEV, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1489 RFA No. 1368 of 2020 APPELLANT NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/OF NO.1078, 12TH CRISS, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE-560 003. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.S.SHESHADRI., ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3; SRI. NAGENDRA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR A4 & A5) AND: 1. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O LATE SRIRAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. SMT SHIVA KUMAR W/O R.MANI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BOTH RESIDENTS OF NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, KONAMPALLI POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125. 3. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAMMA D/O LATE B.M.VENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 4. SRI YATHISHA M S/O S M REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.2619, 36TH 'A' CROSS, 26TH MAIN, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 069. 5. SMT SAROJAMMA D/O LATE B.M.VENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 6. SMT PUSHPA REDDY D/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1489 RFA No. 1368 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.397, 6TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, MSR NAGAR, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054. …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 As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 06.01.2025, 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 15.01.2025. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1489 RFA No. 1368 of 2020 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.: 2