- 1 - RSA No. 1329 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1329 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. INDIRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O DHARNAPPA GOWDA, R/O KALLIDAKOTE, HIREBANDADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRIDHARA POOJARY (DECEASED) SMT. LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE SRIDHARA POOJARY, R/O CHEEKRA GURI, PERNE VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 2. SRI. RAMAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O KALLIKOTE, R/AT HERIBANDADY VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT 3. SMT. SEETHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O LATE SANJEEVA POOJARY Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - RSA No. 1329 of 2018 4. NEMANNA @ ANNU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE SANJEEVA POOJARY 5. PUSHPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, D/O LATE SANJEEVA POOJARY 6. KUSUMA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O LATE SANJEEVA POOJARY 7. HARISHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O LATE SANJEEVA POOJARY NOS.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT KALLIKOTE, HERIBANDADY VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK AND D.K.DISTRICT 8. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O VEERAPPA POOJARY R/AT KALLIKOTE, HERIBANDADY VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK AND D.K.DISTRICT 9. BABU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KALLIKOTE, HERIBANDADY VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK AND D.K.DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DECREE DTD: 24.03.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT PUTTUR, D.K, DISMISSING THE - 3 - RSA No. 1329 of 2018 APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.04.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.32/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PUTTUR, D.K. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal was filed in the year 2018 and this Court vide order dated 27.10.2021, granted three weeks time to comply with the office objections, failing which, list the matter for dismissal. Inspite of the same, till date the office objections are not complied with. In view of the peremptory order, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- JUDGE CP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18