Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1161 Kant
Judgement Date : 18 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27019
RSA No. 816 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.816 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
MAHALAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DIED REP LRS
1. SRINIVAS
S/O SHAMANNA
AGED 50 YEARS
2. THIRUMALESHA
S/O SHAMANNA
AGED 48 YEARS
Digitally signed 3. SATHYAMBA
by DEVIKA M D/O SHAMANNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED 45 YEARS
KARNATAKA
4. RAMAMANI
DIED WITH ISSUED
REP BY PETITONERS
5. VIJAYAKUMARI
SINCE DIEAD REP BY
5(a) MAHDU K
S/O VIJAYKUMARI
AGED 22 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27019
RSA No. 816 of 2022
HC-KAR
5(b) MANU K
S/O VIJAYKUMARI
AGED 28 YEARS
6. INDIRAMMA
D/O SHAMANA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT PLAT No.19
C/O HALINA SEENAPPA
HENUUR BANDE
FRASER TOWN
BANGALORE 560084
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ANIL REDDY S, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
K.A. NATARAJU
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SUDHA
W/O LATE NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. ASHA
D/O LATE NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
3. USHA
D/O LATE NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
4. GURU
S/O LATE NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27019
RSA No. 816 of 2022
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/AT KADENAHALLI VILLAG
KASABA HOBLI, C N HALLY TQ
5. THAYAMMA
W/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O KADENAHALLI C N
HALLY TQ
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2017
PASSED IN R.A.No.45/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
The counsel for the appellants is absent. This matter
is listed for fifth time for non-compliance of office
objections. On 03.07.2025 also the counsel for the
appellants. However, in the ends of justice, this Court,
granted further time of two weeks to comply with the
NC: 2025:KHC:27019
HC-KAR
office objections on cost of Rs.500/-. On perusal of the
records, it discloses that till date, office objections are not
complied and cost also not paid. Hence, it appears that the
counsel for the appellants is not pursuing the matter
diligently. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-
compliance of office objections and non-payment of cost.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SN
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!