- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:850 RSA No. 1049 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1049 OF 2023 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: SRI LAKSHMAIAH S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O NANDI VILLAGE, TALUK AND DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT FATHIMA BEE SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS SRI. ALEEAM KHAN SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI. AYUB KHAN S/O LATE YUNUS KHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O BAJANEMANE ROAD, KORACHARAPRETE, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-561 203 2. SMT. THAHEERA KHANUM SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS SULTHAN S/O LATE YUNUS KHAN Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:850 RSA No. 1049 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O KUMBARAPETE DODDABALLAPURA 561 203 3. SRI. FAROOQ KHAN S/O LATE UUNUS KHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O BEHIND SADHUMUTT CHICKBALLPUR 561203. 4. SMT. SHAHEEDA KHANUM D/O LATE YUNUS KHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O BEHIND SADHUMATT CHICKBALLAPUR 561 203. 5. SRI. BABJAN S/O LATE YUNUS KHAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BEHIND SADHUMATT CHICKBALLAPURA 561 203 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPR R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.27/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.384/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHICKBALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL, 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:850 RSA No. 1049 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for V 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.: 95