- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3197 RSA No. 1776 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE NARAYANA SINGH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT "NESARA NILAYA" OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …APPELLANT [BY SRI NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O BASAPPA D/O LATE NANDEESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O. LATE NANDEESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDENT OF SAMPIGEHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. 3. SRI. N.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3197 RSA No. 1776 of 2024 D/O. LATE NANDEESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O CHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT. 4. SRI. N.RAMARAJU S/O. LATE NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/A NO.533, KANAKAPURA ROAD SARAKKI 3RD CROSS, J.P NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078. 5. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O N.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O SAMPIGEHALLI BENNERUGHATTA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED IN RA NO.5040/2014 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.10.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.2206/2006 (OLD OS NO.307/2001) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL. THIS APPEAL IS 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:3197 RSA No. 1776 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fifth 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.: 79