- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2126 RSA No. 1603 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1603 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: K N SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KURJINA BEEDI, MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, KEMPLAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, RAVANDURU HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE - 571 108. &APPELLANT (BY SRI SUNIL S NARAYAN, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI KUMARA S/O LATE K A MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SRI K.T. GURUSIDDAPPA S/O LATE THAMMAYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SRI RAMALINGAM S/O NACHIMUTTUGOWDER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2126 RSA No. 1603 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESPTS.NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT THERINA BEEDI, KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE - 571 107. 5. SRI. K N MALLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 5(a) 5(b) SMT. NALINI W/O LATE K N MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, KM SANJAYA S/O LATE K N MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5(c) K M ASHWINI D/O LATE K N MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 5(d) K M MADHUSUDANA S/O LATE K N MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPTS.NO.5(a) to (d) are R/AT NO.787/1, 25TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE - 570 001. &RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.08.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.30/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.216/2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2126 RSA No. 1603 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 5th 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 Psg* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 72