IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3744 OF 2019 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. C.BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE B.N.CHANNAPPA, NO.21/22, 5TH CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560026. 2. SMT. VASANTHA, W/O VEERANJANAPPA, MAJOR, VEERASAGARA ATTURU POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. 3. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/P DEVARAJU, MAJOR, R/O GOPALAGOWDA BADAVANE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA. 4. SRI JAYARAM, S/O LATE B.N.CHANNAPPA, MAJOR, NO.21/22, 5TH CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560026. 5. SMT. GEETHA, W/O MUNEGOWDA, MAJOR, VEERASAGARA, 2 ATTURU POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. 6. SMT. PUSHPA, W/O SURESH, MAJOR, R/O MALLATHHALLI, K.GUNTE, BENGALURU. 7. SRI PRAKASH, S/O LATE B.N.CHANNAPPA, MAJOR, NO.21/22, 5TH CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560026. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SIDDAROODA ASHRAMA, REP. BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE SRI SHIVANANDA BHARATHI SWAMIJI, NO.323, SRI SIDDAROODA ASHRAMA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560039. …RESPONDENT (NO REPRESENTATION) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF CPC, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2018 PASSE BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-7) IN L.A.C.NO.31/2013 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ALLOW THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANTS IN THE COURT BELOW FOR GRANTING APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION AND ETC., 3 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appeal was filed on 27.04.2019 and the matter was listed before the court on 25.09.2019. On that day, appellants counsel was absent, three weeks time was granted for compliance of office objections and the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2020. On 17.02.2020 this Court passed the order that two weeks time was granted to comply with office objections and if the office objections are not complied within such period, the appeal shall be listed for dismissal. 2. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellants, he has not complied with the office objections. 3. The matter is of the year 2019. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the appellants In 4 view of the peremptory order, I do not find any grounds to grant further time. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- JUDGE ssb