- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1467 RSA No. 2010 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. 2010 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI MUNIRAJ S/O MADURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO. 26, HADDA SIDDAPURA, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI KEMPARAJ, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SHRI SRINIVAS S.N., AGED 48 YEARS, R/O NO.13, OM SHAKTHI NILAYA, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, MADIWALA, BANGALORE. 2. 3. SHRI RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O PILLAPPA, R/O 6/2, T. KOTHAPPLI VILLAGE, SEVAGONDAPALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. SHRI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIDASAPPA, R/O KOTHUR VILLAGE, MOOKANDAPALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1467 RSA No. 2010 of 2023 4. 5. 6. 7. SHRI ERAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, SHRI DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SHRI SHIVARAJ, S/O DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SHRI BALRAJ, S/O DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOs.4 TO 7 ARE R/A CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LINGAPPA C. AND SRI RAVIKUMAR G., ADVS. FOR C/R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN RA NO.100/2013, RA NO.101/2013 AND R.A NO.102/2013 THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN O.S. NO.1414/2007, IN O.S.NO.1537/2007 AND O.S.NO.1539/2007. 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:1467 RSA No. 2010 of 2023 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, 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.: 28