- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14884 RSA No. 1842 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1842 OF 2013 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. MARICHALLIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O MARICHALLIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. CHOKKOLU, D/O MARICHALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 3. 4. CHIKKADE, D/O MARICHALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SHETTIHALLI COLONY, CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 571 501. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA, W/O. MALAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CHURCH ROAD, SHETTIHALLI COLONY, CHANNAPATNA TOWN- 571 501. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14884 RSA No. 1842 of 2013 AND: 1. SMT.LINGAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS, T. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O THIMMAIH, HOUSE NO.-52,APPAGERE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, NIRMALA, W/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. VASANTHA, D/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 3. BINDU, D/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 4. 5. NAVEEN KUMAR D/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.53, APPAGERE, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA- 571 501. SMT. PADMAMMA, W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 134, CHURCH ROAD, SHETTYIHALLI COLONY, CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 571 501. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14884 RSA No. 1842 of 2013 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 21.03.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.118/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.68/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., CHANNAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Since office objections are not complied on memo for withdrawal, memo is rejected and there is no representation. Even on previous dates also, there was no representation. This shows that, appellants are not diligent in pursuing appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17