- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12234 RP No. 510 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REVIEW PETITION NO.510 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.REVAMMA W/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI.RAVI KUMAR @ KUMAR W/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE URDIGERE HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK - 572140 TUMAKURU DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI.ANTHURAIAH S/O LATE KARISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SRI.SIDDARAJAIAH S/O LATE KARISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SRI.REVANNA SIDDAIAH S/O LATE KARISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12234 RP No. 510 of 2023 RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE URDIGERE HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK - 572140 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 4. SMT.SHYAMALA W/O LATE PREMKUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 5. SRI.YOGANAND T P W/O LATE PREMKUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 6. SMT.T.L.SHANTHA D/O LATE G.N.LAKSHMINARASHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 7. SMT.T.L.YASHODA D/O LATE G.N.LAKSHMINARASHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 8. SMT.INDRANI D/O LATE G.N.LAKSHMINARASHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.9, KHB COLONY 1ST BLOCK LALBAGH SIDDAPURA JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R.2 AND R.3 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12234 RP No. 510 of 2023 MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/09/2023 PASSED IN RSA NO.2362/2008, THEREBY RESTORE THE RSA NO.2362/2008, TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS FROM THE PETITIONERS SIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER On previous date of hearing i.e., 14.03.2025, memo for retirement filed by learned counsel for petitioners was accepted noting that notice of retirement was served on petitioners on 13.06.2024. 2. Though sufficient opportunity was provided to petitioners to make alternate arrangements, none appears on behalf of petitioners. This would indicate that petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting petition. 3. It is also seen that there is failure to pay process fee for issuance of notice to respondent nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12234 RP No. 510 of 2023 4. In view of above, petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1