- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:237 RP No. 200021 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA REVIEW PETITION NO. 200021 OF 2024 IN R.S.A.NO.7260/2010 (DEC-CAN) BETWEEN: DAWALSAB S/O IMAMSAB SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1A) HUSSAINBEE W/O DAWALSAB, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 1B) HUSSAIN BUDDI D/O DAWALSAB, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 1C) IMAM ALI S/O DAWALSAB, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1D) ISMAIL S/O DAWALSAB, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1E) AJMIR S/O DAWALSAB, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1F) MANUR S/O DAWALSAB, AGE: 28 YEARS, Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:237 RP No. 200021 of 2024 OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1G) NOORJA D/O DAWALSAB, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE SIRWAR, TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.A. JAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE (AB)) AND: 1. KHAJA HUSSAIN S/O IMAMSAB, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE SIRWAR, TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR 2. MUMTAZ BEGUM D/O AHEMAD HUSSAIN, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O VILLAGE SIRWAR, TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR …RESPONDENTS THIS R.P., IS FILED U/S 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 05.12.2023 PASSED IN RSA NO.7260/2010 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ALLOWING THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 07.04.2010 IN R.A.NO.59/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT RAICHUR AND THEREBY RESTORING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 02.06.2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) AT RAICHUR IN O.S.NO.217/2005, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS R.P., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:237 RP No. 200021 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. No representation. The order sheet dated 25.11.2024 reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. No representation. The petition is listed for 4th time for non compliance of office objections. Inspite of that, there is no progress in the matter. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter. However, to afford final opportunity, list this matter next week." Inspite of that the objections raised by the office on the review petition is not complied with. There are no reasons to adjourn the matter. It is clear that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non compliance of office objection. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1