- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1465 RSA No. 1820 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1820 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N RAMU S/O LATE CHIKKALINGASHETTY @ NINGASHETTY, SINCE DECEASED LRS SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE N RAMU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SMT. INDRANI D/O LATE N RAMU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SRI LOKESH R S/O LATE N RAMU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SMT. LATHA R D/O LATE N RAMU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. SRI MAHESHA R S/O LATE N RAMU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A DOOR NO.2381, 1ST CROSS, NEAR SHIVANNA HOTEL CIRCLE, 1ST STAGE, RAJIVNAGAR, MYSURU - 570 019. 6. SRI LINGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKALINGASHETTY Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1465 RSA No. 1820 of 2023 @ NINGASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 249, 7TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, NEAR TERICIAN COLLEGE, MYSURU - 570 029. 7. SRI CHINNASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKALINGASHETTY @ NINGASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT HAGINAVALU VILLAGE, HULLAHALLY HOBLI, NANJANGUDU TALUK, MYSORE - 571 315. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: SRI C JAVANASHETTY S/O LATE CHIKKALINGASHETTY @ NINGASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A D.NO.29, 'A' BLOCK, LINK MAIN ROAD, J P NAGAR, MYSURU 570 031. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2011 PASSED IN RA.NO.117/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.150/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) NANJANGUD.TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1465 RSA No. 1820 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for IV 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.: 19