- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30326 RFA No. 1500 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1500 OF 2016 (INJ ) BETWEEN: 1. THE RAITHA KARMIKARA VASATHI NIRMANA SEVA SANGHA NO.92, 1ST FLOOR BULL TEMPLE ROAD CHAMARAJAPET BANGALORE-560 018. REP. BY TIS SECRETARY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RACHANA BHARADHWAJ R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. D.HANMANTHAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT CHANNASANDRA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 061. 2. SRI. MAHADEVAIAH D. S/O LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT CHANNASANDRA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30326 RFA No. 1500 of 2016 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 061. 3. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA CO-OP. SOCIETIES ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. 4. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR B.E.M.I. LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 039. REPRESENTEDBY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. 5. SMT. DEVAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 6. SRI. R. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT CHANNASANDRA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.M.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2; SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, AGA FOR R3; R6 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30326 RFA No. 1500 of 2016 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.06.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7538/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has returned back the papers on 03.07.2025 and has filed a memo of retirement on 08.07.2025. He submits that he has no instructions to go on with the matter. 2. None appears for the appellant. The appeal is of the year 2016. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG