- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3977 RSA No. 1758 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1758 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. P SAYIBABA S/O LATE V R PANDU AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NIVASA, GANDHINAGAR 4TH CROSS, TUMAKURU - 572102 2. SHANTAMMA @ SHANTA W/O LATE P LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND TGMC, BANK, VINAYAKANAGAR, TUMAKURU - 572102 3. P SURESH S/OLATE V R PANDU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKAPETE MAIN ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572101 4. P BALAKUMAR S/O LATE V R PANDU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR SRINIVASA TEMPLE, ACHAR STREET, TUMAKURU - 572101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D BHAT, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3977 RSA No. 1758 of 2024 AND: 1. R SHIVANNA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEGGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU - 572215 2. H R RANGAPPA S/OLATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 40 KHAZI STREET BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560004 3. H NANDESH S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDIGN AT DEEDEPYA NILAYA KUVEMPUNAGARA TUMAKURU - 572103 4. H.R. UMESH S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT HEGGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU - 572215 5. H.R.NAGANNA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT HEGGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU - 572215 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.05/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND PARTLY SETTING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3977 RSA No. 1758 of 2024 ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.90/2015 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT TUMAKURU, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI 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, 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.: 60