- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23772 MFA No. 4875 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4875 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K.M. RAVINDRA S/O LATE B.K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT. SATHYAVATHI, D/O LATE B.K. MUNIYAPPA, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, D/O LATE B.K. MUNIYAPPA, W/O MUNIHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 4. SMT. M. PREMA, D/O LATE B.K. MUNIYAPPA, W/O D. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5. SMT. K.M. SUGUNA D/O LATE B.K. MUNIYAPPA, W/O M. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUMBENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, ERSTWHILE HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 067. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE (V/C)) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23772 MFA No. 4875 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE ASHOK .N, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT. POOJA .A D/O LATE ASHOK .N AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. SRI PUNITH .A S/O LATE ASHOK .N AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 4. SRI RAMESH S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUMBARPET, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJA H., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI H. MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6 ON I.A.NO.1/26) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.757/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23772 MFA No. 4875 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This miscellaneous first appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 11.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.757/2025 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC came to be rejected. 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the appellants, after addressing arguments for some time, seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to work out their remedy before the Trial Court. A memo is filed to that effect, which reads as under: “The undersigned counsel for the appellant do submits to dismiss the above appeal to withdrawn and permit the appellant to file necessary application before the trial Court in accordance with law. Hence, permit the appellant to withdraw the above appeal in the interest of equity and justice.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23772 MFA No. 4875 of 2025 3. The memo is taken on record. 4. Having regard to the submission made and memo filed, the miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. It is clarified that, since the application which was the subject matter of the present appeal was not directed against the impleading applicants / subsequent purchasers, liberty is reserved to the appellants to work out their remedy in accordance with law, including by filing an appropriate application, if so advised, before the Trial Court against the impleading applicants / subsequent purchasers. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the impleading applicants submits that the impleading applicants do not intend to alienate the property in question. 6. The submission is placed on record. 7. In order to enable the appellants to avail the liberty granted and approach the Trial Court, the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23772 MFA No. 4875 of 2025 undertaking shall operate for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such filing an application by the appellants, the Trial Court shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69