- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26912 RFA No. 1225 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. 1225 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. PARAMESHWARA ADIGA S/O GANGADHARA ADIGA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT HOTEL SRI. GURUDARSHAN VIJANAPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 PRESENTLY AT : RESIDING AT NO.9D, SAI COLONY, BELATHUR, KADUGODI, BANGALORE-560 067 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA RAO K S, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: SRI. P.V BALAKRISHNA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. ARUNA REDDY W/O LATE P.V.BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SRI.P.VINOD S/O LATE P.V.BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. SMT. BHAVANI REDDY D/O LATE P.V.BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26912 RFA No. 1225 of 2019 4. SMT. KAVITHA REDDY D/O LATE P.V.BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.419, 8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, DOLLAR COLONY, NEW B.E.L ROAD, BANGALORE-560 094 5. SRI.LOKESH REDDY S/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8/3 'RAJESHWARI NILAYA', KAGGADASANAPURA MAIN ROAD, C.V.RAMAN NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 093 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, AVOCATE FOR R5 (ABSENT)) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.1407/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION & ALLOWING THE COUNTER CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT, RESPONDENT NO.6 IS THE OWNER OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND DIRECT THE APPELLANT TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26912 RFA No. 1225 of 2019 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 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.: 16