IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2020 (MON)

BETWEEN:

M/S. PRAGATHI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS (R) KUMBASHIU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GANESH PUTHRAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. LATE LOOSA SUVARNA, GOPADY VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576220.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANOJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed K.V.N. UPADHYAYA, by THEJAS AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, KUMAR N S/O. LATE RANGANATH UPADHYAYA, Location: H IGH COURT OF GANESH KRIPA, CAR STREET, KARNATAKA KUMBASHI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576220 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR BHAT A., ADVOCATE)

SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Manoj.K., counsel on behalf of Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., for the appellant and Sri.Vijaya Kumar Bhat.A., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non-filing of acknowledgment for having paid cost of Rs.500/-

Counsel for the appellant submits that short accommodation may be granted to pay the cost.

Counsel for the respondent strongly opposes for adjournment.

This court is not inclined to grant time. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 25.10.2025, on that day, counsel for the appellant had sought time. The Court was not inclined to grant time, however in the interest of justice and as a last chance, time was granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- payable to the Advocates' Clerks Association Benevolent Trust, High court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and the appeal was ordered to be listed on 31.10.2025. It was also ordered that the appellant will have right of audience only if the cost is paid and it was made clear that no further adjournment will be granted on the next date of hearing.

The appeal is listed today. Despite the order of this Court, the appellant has not paid the cost. As already noted above, counsel for the appellant is again seeking time. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, I.A.No.1/2022 is dismissed for non-prosecution Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is also dismissed Because of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications if any stands disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

SD/-

(JYOTI M)

JUDGE TKN,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6