Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49932 (KAR)

SRI RANGASWAMY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

RSA/1860/2023 · 2026-01-06

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:856 RSA No. 1860 of 2023 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. 1860 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O LATE KUMBAR THIMAMIAH DECESED BY HIS LRS (A) (B) SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE SRI RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SMT. LATHA D/O LATE SRI RANGASWAMY AGED 25 YEARS (C) SMT.SAVITHA D/O LATE SRI RANGASWAMY AGED 23 YEARS (D) SRI HEMANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGE HUSKUR POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK AND URBAN DISTRICT - 562162 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K N.,ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:856 RSA No. 1860 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-09. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISON KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-09. 4. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH (TQ) KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-09 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2019 PASSED IN RA No.25/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN OS No.159/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:856 RSA No. 1860 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 V 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.: 108