- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3108 RFA No. 1873 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. 1873 OF 2023 (RES) BETWEEN: SMT FARHATH ARA BEGUM D/O KAREEM BAIG, W/O LATE NISAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO 32, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, HEBBAL, BINNYMILL, GANGANAGAR, EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY.V.K., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. MR KHAJA MOHAMMED S/O ABDUL REHEEM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO 32, 1ST CROSS, KANAKA VINAYAKA STREET, BANK COLONY, SHANTHI LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016. 2. HAEROFIN CORP LTD., SITUATED AT 2ND FLOOR, DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS, VATIKA BUSINESS, CENTRE LONGWORD ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. AND ALSO HEAD OFFICE AT: REGD, OFFICE NO.34, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3108 RFA No. 1873 of 2023 COMMUNITY CENTRE, BASANTH LOK, VASANTH VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SURESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 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 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 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. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3108 RFA No. 1873 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 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.: 8