Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46841 (KAR)

DR SHIVAKUMAR v. SRI CHANNA MALLAIAH @ EDACHAIAH

RSA/270/2025 · 2026-01-22

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3982 RSA No. 270 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. 270 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DR. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE SANNAIAH, RESIDENT OF MUGURU VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. ALSO RESIDING AT NO.453/491, VINAY COMPLEX, NETHAJINAGAR MAIN ROAD, MYSORE-5700 10. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHABBIR AHMED, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1(A). SRI CHANNA MALLAIAH @ EDACHAIAH DEAD BY L.R.'S JAYA, D/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1(B). SHYLAJA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3982 RSA No. 270 of 2025 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT B.R. AMBEDKAR COLONY, MUGURU VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK. 2. SMT. PUTTAMADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/O CHANNA MALLAIAH @ EDACHAIAH. 3. SRI, NAGARAJU, DEAD NO LR'S 4. SRI. SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O CHANNA MALLAIAH @ EDACHAIAH RESIDING AT DR. B.R.A COLONY, MUGURU VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(A)) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, T NARASIPURA IN R.A.NO.41/2023 DATED 18.01.2025 AND TO CONFIRM JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AT T.NARASIMPURA IN O.S.NO.32/2011 DATED 15.11.2023 AND ETC., 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:3982 RSA No. 270 of 2025 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.: 69