- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3185 RSA No. 569 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: T K KANCHIPATHI DEAD BY LRS PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE KANCHIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A III DIVISION, TURUVEKERE TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 227. …APPELLANT [BY SRI. YESHU BABA R MISHRA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1(a) T K GANGADHARAIAH DEAD BY LRS JAYAMMA, W/O LATE T.K. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, 1(b) SAKAMMA, W/O LATE T.K. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 1(c) SHANTHAKUMAR, S/O LATE T.K. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOs.1(a) TO 1(c) ARE R/O ARALAGUPPE VILLAGE, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3185 RSA No. 569 of 2025 TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 224. 1(d) KUSUAMA, W/O LATE T.K. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, MARANA LAYOUT, DODDABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073. 2. T.K UMESH, S/O LATE KANCHIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. T.K RAJALAKSHMI, D/O LATE KANCHIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. T.K UPENDRA S/O LATE KANCHIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AR III DIVISION, TURUVEKERE TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 227. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.1/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE, DISPOSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2006 PASSED IN OS NO.30/1999 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE, TUMKURU. 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:3185 RSA No. 569 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fourth 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.: 43