- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010149642021 NC: 2026:KHC:38317 RSA No. 1657 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. ARAI GOWDA AGE ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA RESIDENT OF KEYYUR VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K N., ADVOCATE (ABSENT) ) AND: 1. SRI KARIYA MERA AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O HUKRA MERA HINDU, COOLI R/A KATTATHARU, PADUVANNUR VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. 2. SRI AMBODY MERA AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS S/OKURA MERA HINDU COOLI R/AT KATTATHARU, PADUVANNUR VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010149642021 NC: 2026:KHC:38317 RSA No. 1657 of 2021 3. SRI VASAPPA GOWDA AGE ABOUT 79 YEARS S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA RESIDENT OF KEYYUR VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. 4. SRI SHEENAPPA GOWDA AGE ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA RESIDENT OF KEYYUR VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. 5. SRI VISHWANATHA GOWDA AGE ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA RESIDENT OF KEYYUR VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. 6. SRI DAMODHARA GOWDA AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA RESIDENT OF KEYYUR VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANORANJINI., ADVOCATE FOR R1- (VC); SRI. MOHITH KUMAR.K., ADVOCATE FOR R4 R3, R5, R6 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.12.2018 PASSED IN RA.No.114/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, PUTTUR TALUK D.K, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2003 PASSED IN OS No.333/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DV) PUTTUR, D.K.TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010149642021 NC: 2026:KHC:38317 RSA No. 1657 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT None appears of the appellant. 2. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 is present through Video Conferencing. 3. Even on the last date of hearing, there was no representation for the appellant. 4. However, in the interest of justice, this Court suo motu has listed this appeal for Admission to today. 5. Since there is no representation on behalf of the appellant and the appeal is of the year 2021, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44