- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34514 MFA No. 569 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.569 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N. UPENDER REDDY S/O LATE SRI. N. SUDERSHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 3-4-1013/6 AMBICA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. 301, BARKATPURA, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. 2. SRI. GOUTHAM REDDY S/O LATE SMT. HYMAVATHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 3-4-1013/6 AMBICA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. 301, BARKATPURA, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. N. UPENDRA REDDY. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. V. S. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE SRI. V.S. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 12, 24TH MAIN, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34514 MFA No. 569 of 2024 1ST PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078. 2. INDIA OIL CORPORATION BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO. 29 P KALINGA ROA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027. 3. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER 251/62, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. KEERTHI KUMAR.D, NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(s) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7 IN OS.NO.1629/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 17TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 40 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34514 MFA No. 569 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission by the consent of learned counsels appearing for the both parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The only limited prayer made in this appeal as per submission made by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants are aggrieved by the portion of order directing to pay 49% of profit to the plaintiff and the remaining 51% share of profit shall be invested in any nationalized bank. 3. It is submitted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are partners in the partnership firm to run the Petrol Bunk, but it is not disputed in the suit. The Trial Court has ordered to pay share of profit to the extent of 49% to the plaintiff and the remaining amount of profit shall be invested in any nationalized bank. It is submitted that this nature of order is discriminative in nature. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34514 MFA No. 569 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for defendant No.3, who is appointed as receiver before the Trial Court submitted that now the Petrol Bunk is not functioning and as such, there is no earning from the Petrol Bunk. 5. Whether the Petrol Bunk is functioning or not and whether it is earning profit or not, the respondent No.3/defendant No.2 is directed to deposit the entire earnings of profit in respondent No.4/bank. 6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. 7. If any earning of profit from the Petrol Bunk, such earning amount shall be invested in respondent No.4/bank. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55