- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3230 RFA No. 854 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2016 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: RIZWAN M.K.@ RIZWAN ASAD, S/O LATE USMAN ASAD, AGED ABOTU 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.21, LAZAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.KOTHWAL & SRI. U.G.KATTIMANI., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT. MUNEERUNNISSA S/O LATE USMAN ASAD, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 88, COLES ROAD, 2ND CROSS, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. 2. SRI RAFEEQ USMAN S/O LATE USMAN ASAD, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 39, HAINES ROAD, "SUN RAYS APARTMENT", FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. 3. SRI IRFAN M.K. S/O LATE USMAN ASAD, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 88, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3230 RFA No. 854 of 2016 COLES ROAD, 2ND CROSS, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. 4. SRI MOHAMMED FAZIULLA S/O LATE MOHAMMED HABEEDBULLA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 20, NETAJI ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. 5. SRI IZHAR AHMED S/O WAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AT NO 12/1, OUT HOUSE, KHAZI STREET, BASAVANA GUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. …RESPONDENTS (R3 & 4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R1- APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSED AS ABATED V/O DT:28.07.2023) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR DISMISSAL, 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 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 the Court and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the appeal was listed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3230 RFA No. 854 of 2016 on 08.01.2025, on that day, finally two weeks 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 24.01.2025. 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 08.01.2025, 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.: 4