- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37620 RFA No. 1623 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1623 OF 2006 BETWEEN: SRI G T ANANDA KUMAR S/O G V TIPPANNA 47 YEARS R/AT NO.93/1,KAGGADASAPURA C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-93 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G V TIPPANNA S/O VENKATAPPA MAJOR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT.SIDDAMMA W/O G.V.THIPPANNA, 78 YEARS. R/AT GUNJUR POST & VILLAGE VIA VARTHU, BANGALORE-87. 2. SMT RUKMINAMMA W/O G.M.KRISHNAPPA AGE 65 YEARS R/AT GUNJUR POST & VILLAGE VIA VARTHU, BANGALORE-87. 3. SRI G T SHIVASHANKAR S/O G.V.THIPPANNA MAJOR R/AT RUNJUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37620 RFA No. 1623 of 2006 4. SRI G T NAGESH S/O G.V.THIPPANNA MAJOR R/AT RUNJUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 5. SRI G T VENKATESH S/O G.V.THIPPANNA MAJOR R/AT RUNJUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 6. KUM G T GAYATRI D/O G.V.THIPPANNA MAJOR R/AT RUNJUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 7. SRI MANAVEER P JAIN S/O B.PANNALAL, MAJOR R/OF NO.2, NMC LANE, R.T.STREET CROSS BANGALORE-53, AT PRESENTC/O SHA PANNALAL BHAGANLAL & CO NO.10/1, A.M. LANE CHICKPET CROSS BANGALORE 560 053. 8. SMT RATHNA BAI W/O B.PANNALAL MAJOR, R/OF NO.2, NMC LANE R.T.STREET CROSS BANGALORE-53 AT PRESENTC/O SHA PANNALAL BHAGANLAL & CO NO.10/1, A.M. LANE CHICKPET CROSS BANGALORE 560 053 …RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37620 RFA No. 1623 of 2006 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Registry has recorded that the case file was handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant for the purpose of complying with the office objections. However, the learned counsel has not returned the file. Despite the best efforts made by the Registry, there has been no response from the learned counsel. Thereafter, the matter has been posted before the Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has given ‘no objection’ to the appellant to engage the services of any other counsel in the year 2007 itself. Thereafter, he has no instructions in the matter. 3. Today, when the matter was called out, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. The appellant has not engaged the services of any other counsel. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE