- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6416 RSA No. 1462 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1462 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT ABBANAGATTA VILLAGE, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT DEVINAGARA, BAGUR ROAD, CHANANRAYAPATNA TALUK. 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DEVINAGARA, BAGOORU ROAD, CHANANRAYAPATNA TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. 1(a) SRI KRISHNEGOWDA S/O ANDANIGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS, SANNAMMA @ PUTTAMMA, W/O KRISHNEGOWDA, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6416 RSA No. 1462 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 1(b) NATARAJ S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 1(c) JANARADHAN @ JAYANNA S/O LATE KRISNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 1(d) SMT LEELAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, 1(e) SMT RADHA D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SHANTHIGRAMA VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.22/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED IN OS No.437/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6416 RSA No. 1462 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation for appellants. Matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 5th time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, even on cost, office objections remained un-complied and cost is also not paid. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2