- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2201 RFA No. 1189 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1189 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAGARAJ S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY.M S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.MUNIGANGAPPA., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI ALEX BASTYASA TUSCAN S/O LATE ABRAHAM TUSCAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.1038, KACHARAKANAHALLI SAINT THOMAS POST, BENGALURU-560 084. 2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE SUBBA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2201 RFA No. 1189 of 2023 3. GURAPPA S/O LATE SUBBA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE, R/AT KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …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 When the case is called, the appellants are 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 was granted to comply with the office objections. Once again the appeal was listed on 07.01.2025, on that day, finally two week’s time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the office was directed to list the appeal under the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2201 RFA No. 1189 of 2023 caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’ on 20.01.2025. 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 order dated 07.01.2025, 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.: 38