- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1379 RFA No. 1289 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1289 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATEESH.N.KOTTALAGI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1a. SMT. GOVINDAMMAL W/O V K CHINNADORAI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS., RAJAKUMAR C, S/O LATE V.K.CHINNADORAI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 1b. PAPU.C D/O LATE V K CHINNADORAI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1c. VANITHA C D/O LATE V K CHINNADORAI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT R/AT NO.2, 4TH CROSS, K.S.GARDEN, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1379 RFA No. 1289 of 2023 2. SRI E.MOHAN S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.613/877, K.S.GARDEN SLUM, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. 5. SRI. GUNASHEKARAN S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NO.612/876, K.S. GARDEN SLUM, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sateesh N.Kottalagi., counsel on behalf of Sri.M.P.Srikanth., for the appellant has appeared in person. Counsel submits that short accommodation may be granted to comply with the office objections. This Court is not inclined to grant further time. The reason is simple. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1379 RFA No. 1289 of 2023 the appeal was listed on 07.01.2025, on that day, when the case was called, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. However, finally two day'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 13.01.2025. 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 07.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16