- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49738 RSA No. 1505 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI.UDAYA KUMAR, S/O VENKATESHAIAH, AGEDE ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.1554/2, 5TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F-563122. …APPELLANT (SRI.UDAYA KUMAR- ABSENT) AND: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMANKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 2. SRI PRABHAKARAN, S/O LATE RAMANKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SRI.R.RAVINDRAN, S/O LATE RAMANKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYAM, VIVEK NAGAR, MUTHUMARIYAMMA TEMPLE STREET, ROBERTSONPET, KGF-563 122. 4. SRI.A.RAZAAQ S/O FATHIMA, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49738 RSA No. 1505 of 2016 AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.318, BOWRILALPET, ROBERTSONPET, KGF-563122. 5. SRI.AMEER PASHA BROTHERS OF FATHIMA, SUBHAN COMPOUND, OPP. KITCHEN LINKS, ROBERTSONPET, KGF-563122 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PATTABI C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; V/O DTD 11/11/2016, NOTICE TO R4 AND R5- D/W R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.06.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.43/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., K.G.F., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.295/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL., JMFC., K.G.F., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL JUDGMENT On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that, this Court vide order dated 11.06.2024, issued Court notice to the appellant. As per the Court notice report received from the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49738 RSA No. 1505 of 2016 KGF, the Court notice was personally served on the appellant. 2. When the matter is listed today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Though the Court notice was duly served, the appellant has not chosen to prosecute the matter. It therefore appears that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the matter. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10