- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:851 RSA No. 1175 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. 1175 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M K NAGARATHNA W/O L KUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK. 2. SRI L HUCCHEGOWDA S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA, AGED 67 YEARS,, R/AT KOTAVALU VIILAGE, RAMANATHAPURA POST, ARKALGUD TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI.S. DIVAKARA S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, AGED 45 EYARS, R/AT MALLINATHAPURA VILAGE, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK-573133. 2. SRI RAGHUVEERA S/O SRI M P SHRINIVASA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT ARCHAKA OF RAMANJINEYA TEMPLE, BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, NAGAMANGALA ROAD, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:851 RSA No. 1175 of 2023 DASARAGUPPE, PADAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DIST-571434. 3. SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O SRI RAGHUVEERA, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT ARCHAKA OF RAMANJINEYA TEMPLE, BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, NAGAMANGALA ROAD, DASARAGUPPE, PADAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DIST-571434. 4. SMT. PREMAMMA, W/O LATE M C KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED 58 YEARS, 5. SMT. M K PARVATHI D/O LATE M C KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED 31 YEARS, 6. SMT. M K KUMARI D/O LATE M C KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 ARE R/AT MALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DIST-573133. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.37/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUD DISMISSING AND CONFIRMED THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.166/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARKALAGUD.TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUITAPPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:851 RSA No. 1175 of 2023 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI 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.: 98