- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5586 RSA No. 1440 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1440 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE NARAYNAPPA, D/O LATE DODDAPAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI AMARAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SRI SOMASEKHARA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 4. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/A BALLA VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUNIL T., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA WO LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5586 RSA No. 1440 of 2022 2. SRI SURESH S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. SRI AMBARISH S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 4. SRI SUBRAMANI S/O LATE CHICKAPAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. SRI RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE CHICKAPAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE CHICKAPAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/O KYSAMABALLI VILLAGE, KYSAMABALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 121. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2022 PASSED IN RA No.188/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF) ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN OS No.106/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5586 RSA No. 1440 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 sixth 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 AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11