- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12229 RSA No. 2518 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2518/2011 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: THAYAMMA ALIAS JAYAMMA ALIAS NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O K. GOVINDA SWAMY R/O 10/143, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET KOLLEGALA TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. THAYAMMA @ JAYAMMA @ NANJAMMA, APPELLANT [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O NERALE MALLUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR'S RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3. 2. M. RAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O NERALE MALLUSWAMY. 3. VELUMANI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O NERALE MALLUSWAMY. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT 10/142 MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET KOLLEGALA TALUK-571440. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12229 RSA No. 2518 of 2011 4. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOLLEGALA-571440 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 R4-SERVED V/O/DTD:12.12.2015, R2 & R3 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.2.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.27/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., KOLLEGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.2.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.150/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., KOLLEGALA. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT As per order sheet dated 12.04.2016, matter was referred for mediation and parties were directed to appear before Mediation Centre, Chamarajanagar. 2. Perusal of the letter dated 28.04.2023 by Secretary, DLSA, Chamarajanagar, reveals that parties are not co- operating and appearing before Mediation Centre regularly. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12229 RSA No. 2518 of 2011 3. In view of letter, efforts for mediation is taken as failed. 4. As per order dated 12.06.2023, Court notice was issued to appellant. There was no representation on previous date of hearing as also today. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35