- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11748 RFA No. 100090 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100090 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SHRI. MAGEPPA S/O BASALINGAPPA THAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADBYAKUD VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. G.B.NAIK AND SMT P.G.NAIK, ADVOCATES [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SHRI. SATTEPPA S/O BALAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, NOW AT BADBYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O BALAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, NOW AT BADBYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. BAGAWWA W/O SIDDAPPA BAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11748 RFA No. 100090 of 2016 R/O: ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. LAKKAWWA W/O SATTEPPA PUJARI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI. GOTU @ SAMEER S/O MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BRAHMANPURI, MIRAJ-416 416, DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASTRA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR AND SRI. K.ANANDKUMAR., ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R4; R5-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. When the matter is listed before the Court, and is called out, the advocate must be present in the Court. His or her absence may effect the case. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11748 RFA No. 100090 of 2016 As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed in the year 2016. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The appeal is pending from eight years. As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 11