- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12849 RSA No. 403 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2013 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI K.M. SURESH S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KANTHEGOWDANAIOPPALU, KRISHNAPURA POST, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 015. …APPELLANT [BY SRI R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: 1. SRI MUDDEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT.MARIYAMMA, W/O.MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 3. SRI ASWATHA NARAYANA S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 4. SMT.MANJULA W/O LOKESH, D/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT DODDEKOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK - 570 015. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12849 RSA No. 403 of 2013 5. MRS. BHARATHI D/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT DODDEKOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.NAGARA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 015. 6. SMT.MADAMMA W/O VASUDEVA, D/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KANTHEGOWDANAKOPPALU, KRISHNAPURA POST, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 570 015. 7. SMT.SIDDAMMA, W/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT HARAKERE KOPPAL, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK - 570 015. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAGADISH MUNDARGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; V/O DATED 10.11.2023, APPEAL AGAINST R6 IS ABATED; R7 -SERVED] THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 20.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.203/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.3.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.156/2004 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNSUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12849 RSA No. 403 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 5 is present. 2. Though matter was passed over and called again, none appears for appellant. Even on 03.03.2025, there was no representation for appellant and on 10.03.2025, adjournment was sought on behalf of appellant. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41