- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25431 RSA No. 1085 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1085 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. ANDANAIAH S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. HONNARAJU S/O GANGABYRAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. LAKKAMMA D/O GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. GANGAMMA S/O KADAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING OF MANDANIPALYA VILLAGE KODIHALI DHARKE, KUDUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR R., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. CHIKKAGANGAIAH S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT MANDANIPALYA VILLAGE KODIHALLI DHAKLE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25431 RSA No. 1085 of 2022 KUDUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK. 2. BISKUR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH BISKUR VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. MAGADI TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICERS NEX EXTENSION, MAGADI. 4. ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU RURAL DIVISION, GANDHINAGAR KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD MAGADI. 6. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD CAVUERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU PRERESENTED BY IS CHAIRMAN. 7. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.432/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25431 RSA No. 1085 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellants is absent. This matter is listed 4th time for non–compliance of office objections and this Court on 29.11.2023 imposed the cost of Rs.500/- by granting two weeks time to comply with office objections. Even inspite of almost 1 ½ year, the counsel has not paid the cost and also not complied the office objections. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non- compliance and non-payment of cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16