- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8561-DB R.F.A. No.800/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.800/2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. T.S. NATARAJAN S/O LATE SRI. T.S. SIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT. POORNIMA BUILDING NO.28, (OLD NO.30) BASAPPA ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV., [ABSENT]) AND: 1. KUM. LAKSHMI D/O SMT. T.S. SHARADA AND SRI. AJAYASIMHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS. 2. KUM. PREETHI D/O SMT. T.S. SHARADA AND SRI. AJAYASIMHA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,. BOTH ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND FATHER SRI. AJAYASIMHA R/AT. NO.146, 5TH CROSS II BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8561-DB R.F.A. No.800/2014 3. SRI. T.S. NITYANANDA S/O SRI. T.S. SIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,. 4. SRI. T.S. SACHIDANANDA S/O SRI. T.S. SIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT POORNIMA BUILDING NO.28, BASAPPA ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNASWAMY, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 R3 & R4 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V.C.O.DTD:30.07.2015) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.1.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5553/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION & SEPARATE POSSESSION & PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8561-DB R.F.A. No.800/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) There is no representation for the appellant. 2. The appellant has not filed paper books despite granting time vide order dated 24.11.2023, 03.09.2024 and 05.02.2025 nor the cost is paid as directed vide order dated 03.09.2024 and 05.02.2025. 3. Today also there is no representation for the appellant and there is no compliance of the orders. 4. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3