- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42199 RSA No. 1474 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1474 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O. NARAYANAPPA, D/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NERNAHALLI VILLAGE, MOTHAKAPALLI POST, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, PIN-563 138. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O. GOVINDAPPA, D/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA.M, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT IMARAKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. SMT. OBAKKA, W/O. VENKATASWAMY, DECEASED, LR'S ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 9, 2. SRI. REDDAPPA, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42199 RSA No. 1474 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMESH, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT MALADEPALLI VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, PIN-563 135. 6. SMT. NAREMMA, W/O. NARAYANASWAMY, D/O. LATE VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 7. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. NARAYANASWAMY, D/O. LATE VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT IMARAKUNTE VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, PIN-563 135. 8. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, W/O. RANGANATH, D/O. LATE VENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PANDIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, PULAGURU KOTE POST, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42199 RSA No. 1474 of 2019 NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, PIN-563 135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.NAGESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the appellant is not represented. When the case is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. His absence may affect the case. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 20.11.2024, on that day, despite the matter was moved by the appellant, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. However, the appeal was adjourned subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42199 RSA No. 1474 of 2019 The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non furnishing of acknowledgement for having paid the cost. As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed in 2019. Now we are in the month of October, 2025. It is pending for from six years. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellant is not represented and cost is also not paid. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Because of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24