- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2127 RSA No. 1625 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. 1625 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI A. MAHADEVA S/O LATE H.N. ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A EECHOORU VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 102. &APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVINDRA BABU G., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SMT. A BHAGYA D/O LATE ANNEGOWDA, W/O RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NELAMANGALA BENGALURU - 562 123. 2. SMT. SANNAMMA W/O LATE H N ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 3. SMT NAGAMMA (DEAD) SMT KALAMMA W/O LATE H N ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. SRI MALLESHA S/O LATE H N ANNEGOWDA, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2127 RSA No. 1625 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 5. SRI SWAMY S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SRI KRISHNA S/O NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 7. SRI P RAMAKUMAR S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 8. SRI VENKATEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 9. SRI APPAJIGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10. SRI SANNEGOWDA S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 11. SRI B T CHIKKANNA S/O THIMMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ALL ARE R/OF EECHOORU VILLAGE, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571102. &RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2024 PASSED IN RA.No.16/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2127 RSA No. 1625 of 2024 MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2021 PASSED IN OS No.262/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIAYAPATNA.TRIAL COURT PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT FOR PARTITION. 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.: 74