Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48801 (KAR)

SRI. AKTHARI SULTHAN v. AARIF ULLA KHAN

MFA.CROB/83/2023 · 2026-01-27

Chillakur Sumalatha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4219 MFA.CROB No. 83 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 83 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. AKTHARI SULTHAN W/O ASLAM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SMT. ASLAM PASHA S/O SAYED PASHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PRESENTLY BOTH ARE NOW RESIDENCE OF SHANTHINAGARA, PANDAVAPURA TOWN, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434. PREVIOUS ADDRESS NO. 3239 1ST CROSS, 2ND EDGE, MANDI MOHALLA, V.C. ROAD MYSURU. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4219 MFA.CROB No. 83 of 2023 AND: 1. AARIF ULLA KHAN S/O GAIBUN PEER SAB,. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KOTTHAGERE VILLAGE, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130. 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ANAND COMPLEX, IST FLOOR, K.R.S. ROAD, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA - 571 434. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC.NO.463/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4219 MFA.CROB No. 83 of 2023 ORAL ORDER No representation on appellants side on call. 2. There was no representation even on 06.01.2026. Also on 22.07.2024 following order was passed. "One week's time is granted finally to comply with the office objections, failing which, the appeal shall be dismissed for default". 3. However till now even the office objection is not complied. All these facts reveal that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3