- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28307 RSA No. 743 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.743 OF 2021 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHIKKA BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST. 2. 2(a). 2(b). SRI CHANNE GOWDA, S/O CHIKKA BORAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. BOREGOWDA, S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS. VIKAS, S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS. A2(a) AND (b) ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O KABBARE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 671124. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARAJJI DEEPAK, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28307 RSA No. 743 of 2021 AND: 1. SRI M.T. THIMMAIAH, S/O. KURITHIMMANAKARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 671124. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.06.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.08/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.No.354/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellants on 17.07.2025 made the submission that now the respondent has given proposal and he will consult with the client and hence the matter was adjourned to 22.07.2025. On 22.07.2025, the matter was called twice in the morning session and also in the afternoon session and none appeared. This Court made the observation that this matter is heard in part and hence, final opportunity is given and ordered to list the matter today. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28307 RSA No. 743 of 2021 2. Today also this matter is called twice and there is no representation on behalf of the appellants and on both the occasions, the learned counsel for the respondent is present. When such being the case and when the learned counsel for the appellants is not showing any interest in pursuing the matter, though made the submission that proposal was given and he will consult with the client and make the submission, he did not appear before this Court in the previous occasion as well as today also. Hence, no grounds to adjourn the matter once again. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54