- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3187 RSA No. 780 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. 780 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: T PREMANATH S/O M N THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT 3RD CROSS ROAD, ANDANAIAH EXTENSION, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 512 127. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE KESHAVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. K RAMACHARI S/O LATE KESHAVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. K PARIPURNACHAR S/O LATE KESHAVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3187 RSA No. 780 of 2025 4. K PRAKRUTHACHAR S/O LATE KESHAVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5. K YOGANANDACHARI S/O LATE KESHAVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 6. K KALAVATHI W/O LATE K RAGHUVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. MANOJ KUMAR S/O LATE K RAGHAVACHAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 8. VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE K RAGHAVACHAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.BHUVAN, ADV. FOR C/R4 & 5 IN CP NO.12382/2025) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2025 PASSED IN RA.No.5044/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2024 PASSED IN OS No.179/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3187 RSA No. 780 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI 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.: 55