Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49262 (KAR)

SRI D C PUTTASWAMYGOWDA v. SRI CHIKKIREGOWDA DEAD BY LRS

RSA/1081/2025 · 2026-01-22

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3970 RSA No. 1081 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI D C PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, S/O CHIKKIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI D.P.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O D.C.PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, R/AT DODDAKOPPALU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. …APPELLANT (BY SRI P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI CHIKKIREGOWDA DEAD BY LRS SRI D.C.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O CHIKKIREGOWDA, 2. SRI D.C. SOMASHEKHARA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O CHIKKIREGOWDA, 3. SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, W/O CHIKKIREGOWDA, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3970 RSA No. 1081 of 2025 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT DODDAKOPPALU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.06.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.11/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGARA., PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED WITH MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.02.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.595/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGARA, AND ETC., 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 fourth 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.: 48