- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21218 RSA No. 2018 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2018 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P. LAKSHMINARASIMHA S/O K.N. PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT JANGER NO.522, D.NO.508, HOOTAGALLI, KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570 018 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MARIGOWDA DEAD BY HIS LRS THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. NARASEGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3. VIRAMUDIGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21218 RSA No. 2018 of 2021 4. MARIGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. CHELUVEGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570 018 6. SMT. KOMALA VISHWANATH W/O LATE VISHWANATH ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 7. SRI CHETHAN VISHWANATH S/O LATE VISHWANATH ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 8. SMT. CHITRA VISHWANATH D/O LATE VISHWANATH ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT 1ST BLOCK BELVADI VILLAGE MYSURU TALUK MYSURU - 570 018. 9. SRI. B.M. SWAMY S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT 1ST BLOCK BELVADI VILLAGE MYSURU TALUK MYSURU - 570 018. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21218 RSA No. 2018 of 2021 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.170/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.115/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPA JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellant is absent and also not paid the cost as ordered by this Court on 09.06.2025 and order is very clear that if the office objections are not complied and cost not paid, list the matter for dismissal. Inspite of this matter listed for dismissal, not paid the cost and not complied with the office objections. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72