- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33143 RSA No. 367 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 367 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. AYESHA SIDDIQUA W/O HOLALU LIYAKATH ALI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. ZAINAB ALI D/O HOLALU LIYAKATH ALI AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 3. ABDULLA ALI S/O HOLALU LIYAKATH ALI AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS (MINOR) REP. BY MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 945, S. NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HOLALU LIYAKATH ALI S/O PINJAR MADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33143 RSA No. 367 of 2024 2. RAHAMATH ALI @ RAHAMATH ALI HOLALU S/O PINJAR MADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SAFDAR ALI S/O PINJAR MADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 R/AT 7TH MAIN, BDCC BANK COLONY M.J. NAGAR HOSPET BELLARI DIST - 583 201. 4. SMT. RABIYA W/O RIYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. RIYAZ AHMMED S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 R/AT 3RD MAIN, 12TH ROSS VINOBA NAGAR, NEAR RING ROAD S.S. LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 6. MOHAMMED ABRAR S/O ABDUL LATHEF AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT ARAVINDNAGAR, 22ND WARD NEAR VIDYA CHETANA SCHOOL HOSPET - 583 201, BELLARY DIST. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33143 RSA No. 367 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.160/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.410/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Office has raised objection with regard to respondent No.5 being made as a party in this appeal who was not made as a party before the First Appellate Court though respondent No.5 was a party-defendant No.5 in the Trial Court. Trying to implead the party who was not made as party before the First Appellate Court is impermissible. As such, office objection is upheld. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25