- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16282 RSA No. 5904 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5904 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARAYAN RAMACHANDRA GIRI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SRI. MAHADEO NARAYAN GIRI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. VPC NOS.414 AND 415, MARUTI GALLI, UCHAGAON, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW AT HOUSE NO.576, "LAXMI NIVAS", RASTA PETTI, PUNE-411 011. 2. SRI. SHANKAR NARAYAN GIRI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VPC NOS.414 AND 415, MARUTI GALLI, UCHAGAON, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHUVEER SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PRAKASH KRISHNA BAN AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VPC NO.406, MARUTI GALLI, UCHAGAON, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.11.26 10:16:50 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16282 RSA No. 5904 of 2012 2. SMT. KUSUM PRAKASH GIRI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, AT AND POST: NERUR, TQ. KUDAL, UCHAGAON, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. NARAYAN GIRI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VPC NOS.414 AND 415, MARUTI GALLI, UCHAGAON, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3-NOTICE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2012 IN R.A.NO.328/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BELAGAVI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2011 IN O.S.NO.192/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16282 RSA No. 5904 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. On the last occasion i.e., on 18.11.2025, it was submitted that the parties have settled the matter amicably and they want to file a compromise petition. Today learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he has no instructions from the parties and therefore, he is unable to make any submission. 3. None appeared for the respondents also. It is seen that the appeal is of the year 2012. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that he would issue notice to the party and then retire, no purpose would be served by granting such opportunity. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE RKM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11