- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30411 RFA No. 933 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 933 OF 2012 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI. GOPALA REDDY, S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.25, CHIKKABASAVANAPURA, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 049. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.V.SADASHIVA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PRAMILA, W/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, VEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KANGADLAHALLI POST, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563116. 2. SRI. NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. LATE VENKATARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, VEERASANDRA POST, KANGADLAHALLI POST, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563116. 3. B.L.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30411 RFA No. 933 of 2012 5TH CROSS, CHIKKABASAVANAPURA, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560049. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBBA REDDY G.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAHUL REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R3 ON IA 2/12) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.D.V.Sadashiva Reddy., counsel for the appellant and Sri.Subba Reddy.G.R., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 appeared in person. Counsel for the appellant submits that a memo has been filed stating that the parties to the lis have settled the matter out of the Court. Hence, he submits that the memo may be placed on record and the appeal may be disposed of. Sri.Gopala Reddy - the appellant and his son Sri.Somashekar are physically present before this Court and they are duly identified by their counsel. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30411 RFA No. 933 of 2012 When queried, the appellant and his son submits that a conscious decision is taken about the disposal of the petition and if an order is passed they shall not seek review of the order or modification of the order. The oral submission and the memo is placed on record. As the appellant and his son have taken a conscious decision about the disposal of the petition, the appeal is disposed of as settled out of Court. The Registry concerned is directed to refund the Court fee as per the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Because of disposal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11