- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:552 RFA No. 100120 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100120 OF 2017 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BASAWWA W/O GURUBASAPPA AMMANAGI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. RAMESH GURUBASAPPA AMMANAGI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI. MAHESH S/O GURUBASAPPA AMMANAGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.B. SHAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PRAMILA @ LATA W/O SHIVALING MALI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GAYATRE NIVAS, PATIL BUILDING, TOWNSHIP DANDELI, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2026.01.22 11:26:45 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:552 RFA No. 100120 of 2017 TQ: HALYAL, DIST: KARWAR. 2. SMT. RENUKA D/O GURUBASAPPA AMMANAGI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 307. 3. SMT. MAHADEVI D/O GURUBASAPPA AMMANAGI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 307. 4. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O GURUBASAPPA AMMANAGI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 307. 5. SMT. KASTURI W/O GURUBASAPPA AMMANAGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 307. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.180/2007 BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK, BY DECREEING THE SUIT IN PART IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:552 RFA No. 100120 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The office note indicates that the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to furnish the process fee, copies, correct addresses, etc., for issuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 to 5, despite the matter being listed for the said purpose for the third time. The appeal is of the year 2017. Despite several opportunities, the learned counsel for the appellants has not complied with the office objections. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. It appears that the counsel is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10