- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3981 RSA No. 221 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. SHAKEELA K G W/O RAJKUMAR D/O GIRIYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O THARALLI THYAAVANA POST SRINGERI TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577139 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B S SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. K G RAMAKRISHNA S/O GIRIYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O KAINALLI, KAINALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577432 2. SOMAIH S/O GIRIYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O KAINALLI, KAINALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGA Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3981 RSA No. 221 of 2025 3. SMT. SHAILA W/O SHANKRAPPA D/O GIRIYA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O KAINALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577432 4. CHANDRAPPA D/O GIRIYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O KAINALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577432 5. SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O BELLIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O AKALAPURA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432 6. B D CHANDRAHASSA S/O DAKAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O BAALEHALLI KARUNAAPURA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577432 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.31/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.04.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.28/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3981 RSA No. 221 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fifth time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellant was 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 appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 68