- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28629 RSA No. 1648 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT NAGAMMA W/O LATE SANNA MARIYAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O GUDDADAHALLY VILLAGE, TALUK MOLAKALMURU, DISTRICT CHITRADURGA, PIN-577535 …APPELLANT (BY SRI K. VANI., ADVOCATE—ABSENT) AND: 1. SMT. MARIYAKKA W/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D/O LATE SANNA MARIYAPPA R/O GUDDADAHALLY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT DADAGUR VILALGE, TALUK MOLAKALMURU, DISTRICT- CHITRADURGA PIN-577535. 2. THIMMAPPA S/O LATE SANNA MARIYAPPA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O GUDDADAHALLY VILLAGE, TALUK MALAKALMURU, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28629 RSA No. 1648 of 2014 DISTRTICT CHITRADURGA, PIN-577535. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024, STEPS ARE NOT TAKEN IN RESECT OF DECEASED R1) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2011 PASSED IN R.A. No.80/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2007 PASSED IN O.S. NO.58/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal was filed in the year 2014. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant has not taken any steps to respondent No.2 and the cost was imposed vide order dated 25.11.2024. The appellant has failed to pay the cost as order by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024. 2. Case called out. None appears for the appellant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28629 RSA No. 1648 of 2014 3. It shows that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and the appellant has not taken any steps to respondent No.2, and further, respondent No.1 died and the appellant has not taken any steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record. Hence, the appeal is abated against respondent No.1 by the operation of law. 4. It is seen that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for not taking of steps. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK, List No.: 3 Sl No.: 30