- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31370 RFA No. 586 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE - [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI. THIGALAPPA, S/O SONNAPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SRI K VENKATESH, S/O K.KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. 5. SRI VENKATESH S/O CHIKKAMUNITHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI SSA ROAD, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 024. THE INSPECTORATE OF ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31370 RFA No. 586 of 2016 NOW CALLED S.Q.A.E(I) D.G.Q.A.COMPLEX, S.K.GARDEN, BENSON TOWN POST, BANGALORE - 560 045 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 [ABSENT]; R1 TO R4 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2014 PASSED IN O.S NO.6435/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT - XV AND C/C OF XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST 1ST DEFENDANT THEREIN AND DISMISSING THE SUIT AGAINST 2ND DEFENDANT THERE. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Even though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation for appellant. 2. On noticing that this appeal is by defendant no.2 against judgment and decree passed in suit, wherein suit was subsequently dismissed against defendant no.2, this Court had passed following order: "On perusal of impugned judgment and decree, it is seen that trial Court dismissed suit against defendant no.2. This appeal is by defendant no.2, appellant to establish how he is aggrieved party. List this appeal on 13.08.2025." - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31370 RFA No. 586 of 2016 3. Despite same, there is no representation to satisfy how appellant would be aggrieved party. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal and same is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24