Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49347 (KAR)

SRI. ALPURA THIMMANNA v. SMT. ANASUYAMMA

RSA/1456/2022 · 2026-01-08

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1062 RSA No. 1456 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1456 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ALPURA THIMMANNA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. SRI. JUNJANNA @ JUNGE GOWDA S/O ALPURA THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O S.R. PALYA VILLAGE, NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK. 3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O PARAMESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE DINDAVARA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. SMT. MANJULA W/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O GOWDANAKUNTE VILLAGE AMARAPURAM MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SRIDEVI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1062 RSA No. 1456 of 2022 W/O RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O AUTO RAJANNA BUILDING, NEAR ATTI LAKKAMMA TEMPLE, MALLASANDRA, NAGASANDRA POST HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: SMT. ANASUYAMMA, W/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O JANGAMARAHALLI VILLAGE, NIDAGAR HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.89/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.497/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PAVAGADA. THIS APPEAL, 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:1062 RSA No. 1456 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for V time for non-compliance of office objections. Though sufficient time was granted, appellants have not complied with office objections. Even though two weeks' time was granted, on payment of cost of Rs.500/- to comply with office objections, on 07.12.2023, appellant has not complied with same. This would indicate that appellant is not diligent in pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9