- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4124 RFA No. 2200 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2200 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. MR.GOPAL @ G.M.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE G.M.MARIYAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.426, 16TH MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-26. 2. MR. G.M. MANJUNATH @ MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE G.M.MARIYAPPA, RESIDING AT 426, 16TH MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-26. 3. MR. SHANKAR @ G M SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, RESIDING AT 426, 16TH MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-26. 4. MR. D.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O DORESWAMY, HUSBAND OF MRS. G.M.KALPANA, LR'S 5. MR. DURGESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJ AND G.M. KALPANA, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4124 RFA No. 2200 of 2022 6. MRS. MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O NAGARAJ AND G.M. KALPANA, 7. MR. ARVIND AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJ AND G.M. KALPANA, 4 TO 7 ARE R/AT NO.717, 30 'A' CROSS, TILAKNAGAR, BENGALURU-41. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. N. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O NARAYANAPPA, D/O ALTE G.M.MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO.9, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, ANANDAGIRI EXTENSION, HEBBAL, BENGALURU. 2. MRS. M.J. LALITAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O JAGADEESWARA, D/O ALTE G.M.MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO. 314/B, B.C.COLONY, BAIREDDYPALYA, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. MRS. G.M.VANITHA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O YATHIRAJ, D/O LATE G.M.MUNIYAPA, R/AT NO.23, GROUND FLOOR, SHIVANANDANAGAR, JARAGANAHALLI, J.P NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-78. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4124 RFA No. 2200 of 2022 4. MRS. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM, D/O LATE G.M.MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO. 2617, 5TH CROSS, HOSABANDIKERE, MYSORE-570 004. 5. MR.RAMESH.T AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMARAYA, SON-IN-LAW OF MRS.G.NARASAMMA, HUSBAND OF MRS. G.M.HEMAMALINI. 6. MR. SHASHIKUMAR.R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O RAMESH.T AND MRS. G.M.HEMAMALINI, R/AT NO. 426, 16TH MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU. 7. MR. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE G.M.MUNIYAPPA, R/AT 426, 16TH MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU. 8. MRS G.SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE G.M.RAJANNA, 9. MRS. R. ARUNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O VENKATESH, 10. MR. R.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJANNA, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4124 RFA No. 2200 of 2022 R/AT NO. 2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, ANANDANAGAR, BENGALURU-32. 11. MRS. G.M.MANJULA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O RAMACHANDRA @ CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT JARAGANAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU. 13. MRS. SHANTAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O MURALI, RESIDING AT BINNY MILL ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU. 14. MR. LAKSHMAIAH.G AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.40/2, PATTALAMMAN KOVIL, STREET, DENKANIKOTTAI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B.SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4124 RFA No. 2200 of 2022 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 the Registrar (P & H) and also before the Court and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Thereafter, the appeal was listed before the Court on 13.01.2025, on that day, finally two week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the appeal was ordered to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections' on 29.01.2025. The appeal is listed today under the caption 'for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections'. Despite granting sufficient time, the office objections are not complied with. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3