- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27019 RSA No. 816 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.816 OF 2022 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. MAHALAKSHMAMMA SINCE DIED REP LRS SRINIVAS S/O SHAMANNA AGED 50 YEARS 2. THIRUMALESHA S/O SHAMANNA AGED 48 YEARS 3. SATHYAMBA D/O SHAMANNA AGED 45 YEARS 4. RAMAMANI DIED WITH ISSUED REP BY PETITONERS 5. 5(a) VIJAYAKUMARI SINCE DIEAD REP BY MAHDU K S/O VIJAYKUMARI AGED 22 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27019 RSA No. 816 of 2022 5(b) MANU K S/O VIJAYKUMARI AGED 28 YEARS 6. INDIRAMMA D/O SHAMANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT PLAT No.19 C/O HALINA SEENAPPA HENUUR BANDE FRASER TOWN BANGALORE 560084 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI ANIL REDDY S, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. K.A. NATARAJU SINCE DEAD BY LRS SUDHA W/O LATE NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. ASHA D/O LATE NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 3. USHA D/O LATE NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 4. GURU S/O LATE NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27019 RSA No. 816 of 2022 ALL ARE R/AT KADENAHALLI VILLAG KASABA HOBLI, C N HALLY TQ 5. THAYAMMA W/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O KADENAHALLI C N HALLY TQ …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2017 PASSED IN R.A.No.45/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT The counsel for the appellants is absent. This matter is listed for fifth time for non-compliance of office objections. On 03.07.2025 also the counsel for the appellants. However, in the ends of justice, this Court, granted further time of two weeks to comply with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27019 RSA No. 816 of 2022 office objections on cost of Rs.500/-. On perusal of the records, it discloses that till date, office objections are not complied and cost also not paid. Hence, it appears that the counsel for the appellants is not pursuing the matter diligently. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections and non-payment of cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN