- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25446 RSA No. 1473 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1473 OF 2009 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. LAXMANA S/O LATE SHANKUNAPPA @ SAGUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BURUDEKATTE VILLAGE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …APPELLANT (APPELLANT SERVED - ABSENT) AND: 1. 1(a) S. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE SHAKUNAPPA @ SAGUNAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR 1(b) HEMALATHA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR 1(c) BHGYA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25446 RSA No. 1473 of 2009 1(d) VEDAVATHI D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR 1(e) B.H.RANGANATH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR 1(f) B.H.BHASKAR S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS 1(a) TO 1(e) ARE R/O. NO.148/1, 3RD CROSS VIDYANAGAR BHADAVANE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.1(f) IS RESIDING E2, 1/163, 1ST WARD PAPER TOWN (MPM) BHADRAVATHI (P) BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 2. MALLAPPANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH BY ITS SECRETARY, MALLAPPANAHALLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a to f); R2 - SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.31/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.129/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) HOLALKERE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25446 RSA No. 1473 of 2009 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This Court has issued the court notice to the appellant in view of the counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant is no more and court notice was also served on the appellant on 21.01.2026 on the son of the appellant, hence, the service of notice on the appellant is sufficient. This report was received by this court on 28.01.2026 from the Trial Court but till date, the appellant has not taken any steps to engage either any counsel or to appear before this court. Hence, it is clear that appellant is not pursuing the matter diligently and not interested in pursuing the matter inspite of service of notice issued through Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN