- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23078 RSA No. 204 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.204 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. DASAIAH S/O. LATE KALYANAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS JAYAMMA W/O. LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. VENKATESH S/O. LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. RAJU S/O. LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. GOVINDARAJU S/O. DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 5. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KADARAMANAGALA VILLAGE, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PARASHIVA PRASAD H M, ADVOCATE [ ABSENT]) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23078 RSA No. 204 of 2023 AND: 1. KADE GOWDA S/O. CHANNABASAVEGOWDA BY LRS & OTHERS SMT. SOWBHAGAYA W/O. LATE KADE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SUKANYA D/O. LATE KADE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SOWMYA D/O. LATE KADE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. SWETHA D/O. LATE KADE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 5. SACHIN D/O. LATE KADE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KADARAMANAGALA VILLAGE, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.07/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23078 RSA No. 204 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT None appears for the appellants. On 16.06.2025, the counsel for the appellants was absent and the counsel for respondents was present. Today also, the counsel for respondents is present and the counsel for the appellants is absent. This Court, on 16.06.2025, also made it clear that if the counsel for the appellants does not appear on the next date of hearing, the appeal will be dismissed. Inspite of the said order, the counsel for the appellants is not pursuing the matter diligently. Hence, in view of order dated 16.06.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN