- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18160 RSA No. 2582 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2582 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: DR H S SRINIVAS PRASAD AGED 78 YEARS S/O LATE H.N.S. IYENGAR, R/AT 936, I NORTH MAIN, LAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU - 570 004. (PARTY IN PERSON) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H S SRINIVAS PRASAD, PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.436, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED (CESC) NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE HINKAL, MYSURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R3 SMT. GEETHADEVI M. PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18160 RSA No. 2582 of 2017 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.118/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.641/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/party-in-person filed a memo for withdrawal of the appeal. In support of the memo filed an affidavit which reads as under: “I, H S Srinivas Prasad, aged 85 years, son of the late Mr.H N Sheshadri Iyengar state on oath as under: 1. My two elder sisters, who have since passed away, and I inherited a commercial bullding situated on site number 5, K.R.Circle Mysuru, after my father's death in 1974. 2. On 24/5/2014, the Mysore City Corporation dug up the footpath in front of the building for a depth of 1.4 m using a mechanical excavator, in order to construct three concrete lined trenches. The foundation of the building was exposed. In the process, there was some damage to the façade of the building.. Power supply to the building was disrupted. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18160 RSA No. 2582 of 2017 3. As the construction work posed a threat to the safety of the building, mentioned above, I filed OS 641/2014 on 28/5/2014 on the file of the I Additional I Civil Judge at Mysore. As per the decree passed on 31/03/2016, the suit was partly decreed granting damages of Rs.5000, account of the physical damage to the façade of the building. The remaining prayers seeking injunctions relating to excavation close to the foundation of the building were not granted. 4. I filed RA144/2016, which was transferred to the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru and renumbered as RA 118/2017. As per the decree passed on 4/9/2017, the appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. 5. I filed the present appeal on 13/12/2017. This Honorable Court, vide its order dated 19/06/2018 admitted the appeal. The appeal is still pending. 6. Although I had filed the suit in the trial court within a few days of commencement of construction work, and prayed for injunctions against further excavation and concreting, such work continued unabated even while the suit was pending. The work has long since been completed. Dismantling the work already completed would involve considerable public expenditure. Fortunately, no further damage to the building has been observed. I am therefore requesting this Honorable Court to permit me to withdraw this appeal. 7. The Mysore City Corporation has not yet paid Rs.5000 payable to me vide the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate court. I request this Honorable Court to permit me to pursue this matter to recover a sum of Rs.5000 with interest from the Mysore City Corporation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18160 RSA No. 2582 of 2017 8. Whether the Mysore City Corporation should be allowed to undertake deep excavation work very close to the foundation of existing private buildings is a matter of public policy. I further state that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 8 above are true to my knowledge and that I have verified this affidavit at Mysore on 22/4/2025.” 2. Memo is placed on record. 3. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS