Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49352 (KAR)

SRI THIMMAPPA v. SRI MANJAPPA

RSA/1241/2024 · 2026-01-06

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:863 RSA No. 1241 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1241 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI THIMMAPPA S/O LATE. NAGAPPA, R/AT CHANNAHALLI, AYANUR POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 211. AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, REP BY G.P.A HOLDER I.E., SON SRI. PRASHANTH, S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT CHANNAHALLI, AYANUR POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 211. …APPELLANT (BY SRI AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI MANJAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SMT. PUSHPALATHA, W/O SHIVANNA, D/O LATE. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, AYANUR HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 211. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:863 RSA No. 1241 of 2024 3. SRI. S.Y. SANTHOSHA KUMAR, S/O D. YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, MILLAGHATTA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA.-577 201 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.06.2024. PASSED IN RA NO.6/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.110/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA. 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 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.: 125