1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100386 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1 . SOMASHEKAR RUDRAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 69 YEARS, R/AT HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT, NOW R/AT: BENGALURU. 2. VASUDEV RUDRAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK and DISTRICT, NOW R/AT: GOKAK. 3. KRISHNAPPA RUDRAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT, NOW R/AT: BENGALURU. 4. SMT.KAMALAMMA W/O THEERTHACHAR BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 64 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT, NOW R/AT: BENGALURU. 5. RAJU THEERTHAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT, NOW R/AT: BENGALURU. 2 6. KALLESH THEERTHAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT, NOW R/AT: BENGALURU. 7. MANJUNATH THEEERTHAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT, NOW R/AT: BENGALURU. 8. SHANMUKHAPPA IRAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, R/AT: HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 9. SMT.SUMANGALA W/O ARUN BADIGER AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, R/AT: HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 10. RAVI IRAPPA BADIGER @ ARKASALI AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.D.M.MALLI., SMT.SRUTI CHAGANTI AND SRI.SHEKHAR BADIGER., ADVOCATES [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT.SUMITRAVVA W/O NAGAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYALAXMI D/O NAGAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS, 3 R/AT: HOSARITTI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. SMT.SUJATA W/O MARUDRAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR BUS STAND, KVG BANK, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. GURURAJ NAGAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT: 22 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR BUS STAND, KVG BANK, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.99/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI AND ALSO SET ASIDE COMMON JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 105/2015 AND R.A.NO.14/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HAVERI. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of appellants. The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objection for fourth time. 4 As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed on 27.05.2019. Now we are almost completing the year 2022. It’s been three years. So far office objections are not complied with. As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of appellants. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections and also for non- prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE TKN