- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42198 RSA No. 904 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 904 OF 2020 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MARIYAMMA, W/O. LATE C.RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SMT. R.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SRI. R.RAMESH, S/O. LATE C.RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SRI. R. VINAY, S/O. LATE C.RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT FLOUR MILL, 'D' CROSS, DODDABALLAPURA-561203. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.T.NANJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O. SRI. R.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGE MAJOR, R/O. JANATA STORES, OPP. NO.27, AECES LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42198 RSA No. 904 of 2020 2. SMT. PILLAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S SMT. BHAGYA, D/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT HUSKUR VILLAGE, DODDAVELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561203. 3. HANUMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O. LATE C.HANUMEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, 4. SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA, S/O.LATE C.HANUMEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR 5. SRI. NARENDRA H.S., S/O. LATE C.HANUMEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/O. PINDAKOORTHIMMANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA-561203. 6. SRI. C.MANJUNATH, S/O. LATE H.CHIKKANNA, MAJOR, R/AT PINDAKOORTHIMMANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA-561203. 7. SMT. CHANNAMMA, D/O. SRI.ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42198 RSA No. 904 of 2020 8. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O. SRI. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 9. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, D/O. SRI. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/O. MEENAKUNTE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560013. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the appellants are not represented. When the case is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 30.08.2025, on that day, finally three weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections on payment of cost Rs.1,000/-. So far the cost is not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42198 RSA No. 904 of 2020 paid and the objections raised at the scrutiny stage are also not complied with. The appeal is filed in the year 2020. Now we are in the month of October, 2025. It's been five years, despite granting sufficient time, the office objections are not complied with. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellants are not represented. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and also for non-prosecution. Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30