- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1460 RSA No. 211 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N ANJALI D/O LATE NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O RENUKA NAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 123. 2. SMT. N SARITHA D/O LATE NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O BYAGADHALLI VILLAGE, KAIMARA POST, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. 3. SMT. N SHILPA D/O LATE NATARAJ, W/O RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O TEGUR VILLAGE, RAMPURA POST, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI RAVIKUMAR N R., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. SRI DANPAL MAJOR S/O LATE B M RANGASWAMY, R/O NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL ROAD, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1460 RSA No. 211 of 2023 VIJAYAPURA EXTN, CHIKMAGALUR CITY - 577 101. 2. 2(A) SMT. RAJAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI D MANOJ S/O LATE DORESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NO.1-279, ADVAN NAGAR, KALLANGAADU, TIPTUR - 572 201. 3. KAMALAMMA W/O SUBRAMANAYA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O 5TH CROSS, GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA EXTN, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. 4. SARSWATHI W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O TRIMURTHY THEATER, TIPTUR - 572 201. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED ON IA No. 1 IN RA.No.11/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE) FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA No.1 AND APPEAL, AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2017 PASSED IN OS No.164/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1460 RSA No. 211 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for V time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellants were directed to comply with office objections till closure of Court hours. However, there is no representation and office objections remained un-complied. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50