- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25772 MFA No. 4770 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4770 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: ST. MARYS KALAMANE AND AREKAL ESTATES NIDUVALE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO. 11, HOYES ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. AVINASH PRABHU S/O PETER J.R PRABHU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ST. MARY KALMANE ESTATE NIDUVALE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI. J.P. DARSHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PETER J.R. PRABHU S/O LATE MR. H.P. RODRIGUES MAJOR NO.80, III CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER COMMERCIAL BRANCH Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25772 MFA No. 4770 of 2024 VELLORE DISTRICT WALAJPET-632 513 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I 6TH FLOOR, DEWA TOWERS 770-A, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI-600 002 …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 6 IN O.S.NO.10/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE, DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 10.07.2025 to withdraw this appeal. The said memo is reads as under: MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL The undersigned counsel for the appellant herewith submits that the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order date 05.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.6 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the appellant seeking injunctive reliefs against respondent No.3 in O.S.No.10/2021. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25772 MFA No. 4770 of 2024 It is further submitted that since on the same day the trial Court in O.S.No.10/2021 passed an order on I.A No.4 and directed the applicant to delete the respondent No.3 from the suit. Challenging this order, the appellant had preferred the writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.18774/2024. In the said petition, this Hon'ble Court has observed that Recovery Officer cannot be made a party, and injunctive reliefs could not be sought so as against the respondent No.3 as there is a statutory bar to the same and has dismissed the petition. It is submitted that in the above appeal too, the appellant has challenged order on I.A. under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking restraint against respondent No.3. In the light of the above decision of this Hon'ble Court, the above appeal becomes infructuous and hence this memo of withdrawal may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity." In view of the aforesaid memo, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5