- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4375 RFA No. 1863 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 2023 (MON) BETWEEN: SRI.M.KANDASWAMY S/O LATE P.M.SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 37/A, NEAR MEG CENTRE, KENSINGTON ROAD, KALHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 042. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. TAJUDDIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ZEENATH UNNISSA W/O V.M. IRSHAD AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R.AT NO. 17, BOWER STREET, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008. 1(a) MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O V.M.IRSHAD AHMED (DEAD), R/AT NO.17, BOWEE STREET, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008. 2. M/S RELIANCE STEELS BY PROPRIETOR LATE IRSHAD AHMED, NO.7/A & B, GODOWN STREET, CELLAR, 1ST FLOOR, BANGALORE. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4375 RFA No. 1863 of 2023 3. MRS. ZEENAITH UNNISSA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE IRSHAD AHMED, R/AT NO.17, BOWEE STREET, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008. …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 appellant has appeared in person and sought time to comply with the office objections. This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is plain. 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 09.01.2025, 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 30.01.2025. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4375 RFA No. 1863 of 2023 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 09.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9