- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34378 RFA No. 20 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRAMOD JOIS M.B. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O BHASKAR JOIS 2. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O SRI PRAMOD JOIS B.M. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1341/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGARA, BENGALURU-560085. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SURABHI B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. CANFIN HOMES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.29/1, SIR. M.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD, LALBAGH WEST BENGALURU-560005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34378 RFA No. 20 of 2022 2. M/S. CANFIN HOMES PVT. LTD., NO.414, 2ND FLOOR, POOJA COMPLEX, OLD MADRAS ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560036 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. SRI RAGHAVENDRA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O SRI SEETHARAMA AITHAL R/AT FLAT NO.302, PROPERTY NO.21 PRAMOD LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, PANTHARAPALYA POST, BENGALURU-560039. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; NOTICE TO R-3 – RAGHAVENDRA AITHAL SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1595/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION, AS BARRED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 34 OF SARFAESI ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34378 RFA No. 20 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT The present regular first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2021 in O.S. No.1595/2018 on the file of the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 31) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit is barred by law under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). 2. The respondent-bank has filed a memo stating that, pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the respondent-bank under the SARFAESI Act, the property in question was sold on 02.11.2022, and a sale certificate has been issued in favour of one Sri S. Gnaneshwar S/o late Siddappa .B. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34378 RFA No. 20 of 2022 3. In light of the said memo filed and the issuance of sale certificate in respect of the suit property, which was subject-matter of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the appeal has become infructuous and does not survive for consideration. 4. Accordingly, the regular first appeal stands disposed of as having become infructuous. It is however, made clear that it is open to the appellants to avail themselves of such remedies as may be available in law. The order of the Trial Court shall not preclude the appellants from independently agitating their claim in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71