- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:365 RFA No. 1092 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1092 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: KUM. R.HARSHITHA REDDY D/O SRI. RAJASHEKARA.N AND SMT. ANUPAMA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT ADITI BLISS APARTMENT, B-301, GUNJUR, CARMELARAM MAIN ROAD, NEXT TO KRUPANIDHI COLLEGE, KUCHAMARANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 087. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. UMA.B., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI G.NAGARAJA S/O GURAPPA REDDY @ GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT VENKATAESH REDDY LAYOUT, BEHIND CHANDANA HOTEL, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 068. 2. SRI. GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NEAR AHMED PLAZA, BEHIND METRO, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:365 RFA No. 1092 of 2023 SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 068. 3. SMT. S.PARVATHAMMA, W/O GNANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT MARASUR VILLAGE AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT. 4. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NEAR SWAMY HOSPTIAL, KONAPPANA ARAHARA, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 068. 5. SRI. RANJITH KUMAR, S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NEAR SWAMY HOSPTIAL, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, SINGASANDRA POST BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN REDDY.M.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) 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 appellant is not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:365 RFA No. 1092 of 2023 As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before Registrar (P & H) and also before the Court on several dates and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Despite granting time, office objections are not complied with as of today. The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections for the fourth time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient time, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the appeal is filed in the year 2023. Now we are in the month of January 2025. The appeal is pending for almost two years. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellant is not represented. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8