- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14242 RSA No. 1169 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1169 OF 2008 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMA RAO S/O. SHANKAR RAO MIRJANKAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 020. 2. SMT. RANJANA W/O. RAMA RAO MIRJANKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 020. 3. MISS DEVIKA D/O RAMA RAO MIRJANKAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., BELAGAVI TERRITORY, REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, NEAR DESUR RAILWAY STATION, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANTH ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, HUBBALLI IN R.A.NO.16/2008 DATED 07.03.2008 REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HUBBALLI, IN O.S.NO.319/2005 DATED 04.01.2008 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.12.12 11:50:39 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14242 RSA No. 1169 of 2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appeal has become infructuous, *since the possession of suit property is taken by the appellants from respondent. In view of the same, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE RKM Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 *Corrected Vide Chamber Order dated 09.12.2025 SD/- [CMJJ] - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14242 RSA No. 1169 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [SRI RAMA RAO AND OTHERS VS. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD] 09.12.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI CHAMBER ORDER This matter was disposed of on 25.10.2025 for having become infructuous. It is noticed that, in the judgment, it was wrongly typed as “since the possession of suit property is taken by the respondent” instead of “since the possession of suit property is taken by the appellants from respondent”. Hence, the error is corrected. Registry to issue fresh certified copy of the judgment. SD/- ( C M JOSHI) JUDGE RKM