Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46866 (KAR)

SANNANJGOWDA S/O DYAVEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA v. DEVARAJU

RSA/428/2023 · 2026-02-05

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6856 RSA No. 428 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2023 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. A. SANNANJGOWDA S/O DYAVEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SANNANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS B. SOMASHEKAR S/O SANANAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS C. i. UMESH DEAD BY LRS SMT. SHANTHA W/O LATE UMESH D. i. PRASANNA DEAD BY LRS PRAMODA S/O PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT HULLEKERE VILLAGE GANDSI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK-573 103 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H T., ADVOCATE-ABSENT) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6856 RSA No. 428 of 2023 AND: 1. 1. DEVARAJU S/O VARADHAIAH REP BY PA HOLDER SMT. DYAVAMMA DEAD, REP BY LRS SMT. DYAVAMMA W/O LATE DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SMT. NETRAVATHI W/O DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. SMT. SAROJA W/O KANTARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT HULLEKERE VILLAGE GANDSI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK-573 103 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2018 IN RA NO.54/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2015 IN OS NO.275/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6856 RSA No. 428 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation for appellants. Matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fifth time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, even on cost, office objections remained un-complied and cost is also not paid. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6