- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25433 RSA No. 1170 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. 1170 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. RAMESH KUMAR S/O BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASMABALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563114. 2. SMT. SHILPASHREE W/O RAMESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASMABALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563114. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUNIL T., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VELLORE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASMABALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563114. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25433 RSA No. 1170 of 2022 2. BALAPPA S/O LATE BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASMABALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563114. 3. MUDAMMA W/O BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASMABALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563114. 4. SURESH KUMAR S/O BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASMABALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.101/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, K.G.F, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.414/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25433 RSA No. 1170 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. This Court imposed the cost of Rs.500/- on 29.11.2023 and granted two weeks time. Inspite of even after lapse of 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.: 19