- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7143 RSA No. 575 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. SRI R RANGARAJU S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ALL R/AT CHIKKA BANVARA VILLAGE AND POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SMT.SURABHI SANTOSH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI.PUTTANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI P KRISHNAPPA S/O PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SRI P VENKATESH S/O PUTTANNA Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7143 RSA No. 575 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SRI P NAGARAJ S/O PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL R/AT CHIKKA BANVARA VILLAGE AND POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 4. SRI G PARAMA SHIVAISH R/A SATHENAHALLI VILLAGE SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573 212 5. SRI MALLERSHAPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT CHIKKA BANVARA VILLAGE AND POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2022. PASSED IN RA NO.7/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.1973/2005 ON THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7143 RSA No. 575 of 2023 FILE OF IST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation for appellants. Matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fifth time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, even on cost, office objections remained un-complied and cost is also not paid. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7