- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3091 RSA No. 200303 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200303 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. GOURAMMA W/O MARUTI, (D/O LATE MALLAPPA) AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARIDABAD TQ DIST: BIDAR. 2. TUKKAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA (D/O LATE MALLAPPA) AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: BUDHERA VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR. 3. ERANNA S/O HASHAPPA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SOLAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MAHADEV S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GHALLEMMA W/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRI., R/O: SOLPUR, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3091 RSA No. 200303 of 2024 2. KALLAPPA S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE., R/O: SOLPUR, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR. 3. SUBBAMMA W/O LATE SHARNAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE., R/O: SOLPUR, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR. 4. SHIVARAJ S/O LATE SHARNAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT AND AGRICULTURE., R/O: SOLPUR, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR. 5. BASAWARAJ S/O LATE SHARNAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT AND AGRI., R/O: SOLPUR, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BIDAR IN R.A.NO.08/2023 DATED 04.11.2023 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BIDAR IN O.S.NO.113/2016 DATED 01.03.2019 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3091 RSA No. 200303 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation. 2. Matter was listed for non-compliance of office objections for fifth time. There is no compliance despite sufficient opportunity and same would indicate that appellants are not diligent in pursing appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3