- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3978 RSA No. 1798 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. 1798 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHOWDAREDDY S/O LATE PETA YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SRI VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O LATE PETA YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI ANANDA REDDY S/O LATE PETA YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT VADIGIRI VILLAGE MITTEMARI HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISHKUMAR R., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1A. SRI.LINGALA VENKATAKRISHNAIAH DEAD BY LRS SRI VENKATACHALAPATHY S/O LATE LINGALA VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3978 RSA No. 1798 of 2024 1B. SRI BALARAMAIAH S/OLATE LINGAIAH VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 1C. SMT. NAGAMMA D/O LATE LINGAIAH VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 1D. SRI L V DEVENDRA S/O LATE LINGALA VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 1E. SRI NAGENDRA S/O LATE LINGAIAH VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 1F. SMT. TEJAVATHI D/O LATE LINGAIAH VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1G. SRI L V LOKESH S/O LATE LINGAIAH VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1A TO 1G ARE R/AT JULAPALYA VILLAGE MITTEMARI HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 2. SMT. UTHAMMA W/O CHINNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SRIDHARAVARAPALLI VILLAGE MITTEMARI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTIRCT …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.7/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGEPALLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3978 RSA No. 1798 of 2024 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.192/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI, 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.: 61