- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5046 RSA No. 483 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 483 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI GOPAL REDDY S/O K RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANMOHAN P N., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI. RAMESH S/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. SRI RAMANJINI S/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 5. SMT LALITHAMMA D/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5046 RSA No. 483 of 2024 6. SRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE SRINIVASA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT BAZAAR ROAD CROSS, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN. 7. SRI CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA @ NADIPANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 8. SRI VENKATAREDDY S/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 9. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY S/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/AT YELAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 10. SRI KRISHNA REDDY S/O CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 28 SRINIDHI BUILDING 5TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, H S GARDEN CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 IN R.A.NO.02./2022 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE , CHIKKABALLAPUR AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5046 RSA No. 483 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 6th 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 Psg* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23