- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1474 RSA No. 1126 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1126 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: A MONAPPA POOJARY S/O LATE KUNDA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT 'MANJUSHA' BHM ROAD, NANDIBETTU, KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. …APPELLANT [BY SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT B AND SRI S N BHAT., ADVOCATES (ABSENT)] AND: 1. SMT. REKHA W/O LATE SURESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. MINOR SAMRUTHA S/O LATE SURESH, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 3. MINOR SAMARTHA S/O LATE SURESHA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOs.2 & 3 ARE MINORS AND REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THEIR MOTHER SMT REKHA. RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT ANGALLI MANE, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1474 RSA No. 1126 of 2024 VODERHOBLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 4. SHOBHA W/O LATE K RATHNAKAR SHERIGAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 5. SAHANA W/O LATE ROHAN 6. MINOR PRIYANSHI AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 7. MINOR PRISHA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, 8. MINOR FALAK AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOs.6 TO 8 ARE REP BY ITS THEIR MOTHER SAHANA (RESPONDENT NO. 5) R/AT PADUKERE WEST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.05.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.24/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.235/2002 ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA. 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:1474 RSA No. 1126 of 2024 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.: 68