Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48728 (KAR)

SMT. MANJULA v. SRI. NAGE GOWDA

RSA/1388/2023 · 2026-01-06

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:833 RSA No. 1388 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. 1388 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O SRI NARAYANA D/O SRI NAGEGOWDA AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. 2. SRI SHIVALINGA S/O SRI NAGEGOWDA AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. 3. SMT BHAGYA D/O SRI NAGEGOWDA W/O SRI UMESH AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. 4. SRI KUMARA S/O SRI NAGEGOWDA AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:833 RSA No. 1388 of 2023 AND: 1. SRI. NAGE GOWDA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. 2. SRI ANIL AMENCHERLA S/O SRI A V B PRASAD AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.2 1ST CROSS, MICO LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560076 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED IN RA No.10/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED IN OS No. 272/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA. 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:833 RSA No. 1388 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for IV time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellants were 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 appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28