- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6272 RSA No. 678 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.678 OF 2009 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. YELLAMMA W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING OF THIGALARAPALYA VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 058 REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER S. M. PUTTARAJU S/O. S. M. MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.481 1ST 'F' CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 …APPELLANT (BY SRI H. M. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE, (ABSENT)) AND: SRI THIMMAPPA POOJARI K. S/O. SESUPOOJARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.8, KARIOBANAHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI PEENYA 2ND STAGE Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6272 RSA No. 678 of 2009 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 058 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI J. S. SHETTY AND H. H. SHETTY, ADVOCATES FOR M/S. J. S. SHETTY AND ASSOCIATES FOR C/R) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100(1) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 28.01.2026, on that day, though matter called twice, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the appellant it was ordered to be listed on 03.02.2026 and it was also made clear that if none appears for the appellant on the next date of hearing, the appeal would be dismissed for non-prosecution. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6272 RSA No. 678 of 2009 The appeal is listed today. A perusal of the appeal papers would reflect that the appeal is filed in 2009. Now we are in 2026. The appeal is pending for fifteen years. As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2