- 1 - RSA No. 834 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.834 OF 2020 (DEC) BETWEEN: R. SRIDHAR S/O LATE S. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AT NO.13, 1ST FLOOR, LANDSDOWNE BUILDING, MYSORE 570024 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMA W/O BHARATH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO 2705:17, 7TH MAIN, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU 570020 2. 2(a) SHIVARAJU DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. PUTTASIDDAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2(b) SMT. SAVITHA S., D/O LATE SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2(c) SMT. LATHA D/O LATE SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - RSA No. 834 of 2020 2(d) SRI AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2(e) SMT ANITHA C.S. D/O LATE SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT D.NO.2353, KAILASAPURAM, NEAR MISSION HOSPITAL MYSURU-570001 3. SRI T. SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA, R/AT No.230, NEETI MARGA, SIDDARTHANAGAR, NAZARABAD MOHALLA, MYSORE 570010 4. SMT. MADHAVI D/O MANAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D.NO.555, 26TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570008 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.510/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.65/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - RSA No. 834 of 2020 JUDGMENT This appeal was filed in the year 2020 and this Court vide order dated 23.01.2023, granted two weeks time to comply with the office objections on payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- payable at the Registry, failing which to list the matter for dismissal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has paid the cost, but could not comply with the office objections. 3. Inspite of sufficient opportunity being given to comply with the office objections, office objections are not complied with till date. Hence, in view of the peremptory order, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0