- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26921 RFA No. 934 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 934 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. N LALITHA WIFE OF LATE NARAYANA @ NARAYANASWAMY AGED BY MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.K-52, 13TH CROSS, BANDIREDDY CIRCLE LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560 021 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT AND SRI. RAMESH U, ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) AND: 1. SMT. VALLIYAMMAL WIFE OF LATE KRISHNAPPA @ KRISNASWAMY MUDALIAR MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.K-53, BANDIREDDY CIRCLE LAKHSMINARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560021 2. SMT KALA WIFE OF VEDIVEL MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.K-53 BANDIREDDY CIRCLE LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560021 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26921 RFA No. 934 of 2019 3. SMT SHARADA WIFE OF RAJENDRAN MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.457/101, 7TH CROSS, I MAIN PRAKASHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 021 4. SMT VIJAYA WIFE OF GOVINDAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS SRI GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 5. SMT KAVITHA D/O GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. SMT MANJULA D/O GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 RESIDING AT NO.116, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, L.N PURA BENGALURU-560 021 7. SMT PANCHALAMMA (DECEASED) REP BY HUSBANDAS LR'S SRI DAMODARAN , MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.K-53, 13TH CROSS, BANDIREDDY CIRCLE L.N PURA, BENGALURU-560021 8. SRI K A PRASANANM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26921 RFA No. 934 of 2019 SON OF K K ACHUTHAN MAJOR BY AGE 10TH MAIN MARUTHINAGAR THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560075 BUSINESS ADDRESS: NO.7/80, DR RAJKUKMAR ROAD PRAKASHNAGAR RAJAJINAGAR III STAGE BENGALURU-560 021 …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.4011/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT There is no representation for the parties even on the second call. 2. Despite granting sufficient opportunity to do the needful, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to do so. Though the matter is of the year 2019, it seems that neither - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26921 RFA No. 934 of 2019 the appellant nor the counsel for the appellant is interested in prosecuting this appeal. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14