- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27796 RSA No. 1247 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. AJIT REDDY, S/O ADOPTED FATHER LATE G.RANGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O ANJINA REDDY, R/AT RAMPUR VILLAGE, DEVASAMUDRA, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. G. LAKSHMAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SAJJA REDDY, S/O BABAIAH @ BABIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MANDALAMAND POST, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT. 2. SAJJAMMA, W/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, (RTD. TELEPHONE LINE MAN), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KONDAPURA VILLAGE POST, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27796 RSA No. 1247 of 2022 PENAGONDA MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. G.B.KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE G.BABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT CHAKRLAPALLI VILLAGE, SOMANDEPALLI MANDALAM, PENUGONDA, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT. 4. GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL HEAD OFICE, DAVANAGERE. 5. LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH MANAGER, CHALLAKERE BRANCH, CHALLAKERE. 6. LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH MANAGER, MOLAKALMURU. 7. LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH MANAGER, DAVANAGERE BRANCH, DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.11/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27796 RSA No. 1247 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellant is absent. This Court vide order dated 22.04.2024, granted two weeks time to comply with the office objections on payment of cost of Rs.500/-. Inspite of the said order, the cost is not paid and the office objections are also not complied with. This matter is listed for the fifth time for non-compliance of the office objections. The learned counsel for the appellant is not pursuing the matter diligently. 2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-payment of cost and non-compliance of the office objections. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17