- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3003 RFA No. 1759 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1759 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANNABASAPPA S/O SANGAPPA, AGED 76 YEARS, 2. SRI NANJUNDESWARA S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. SRI VEERENDRA S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENT OF ALAHALLI VILLAGE, JADE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 4. SMT. SHARADA W/O CHANNAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O SALIGE VILLAGE, JADE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK. 5. KALAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O HOSALLI VILLAGE, HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. 6. SAVAKKA W/O BASAVARAJ, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3003 RFA No. 1759 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O HERURU VILLAGE, HANAGAL TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT. 7. LAXMI W/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O YATTINAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. 8. SHIVALILA W/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KUMBATTI VILLAGE, ULAVI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK. 9. NEELAMMA W/O PUTTARAJA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O SALIGE VILLAGE, JADE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.F.HUNASIKATTIMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RUDRAMMA W/O SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. GANGAMMA D/O SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER FIRST RESPONDENT, RUDRAMMA, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3003 RFA No. 1759 of 2023 ETTINAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAGAL TALUK. …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 Counsel for the appellants has appeared in person and submits that short accommodation may be granted to comply with the office objections. This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is simple. 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 on 08.01.2025, on that day, finally a week'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 23.01.2025. The appeal is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3003 RFA No. 1759 of 2023 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 08.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6