- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33544 RFA No. 918 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2008 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI M KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.635 AND 636 2ND MAIN, HEBBAL BANGALORE - 560 024. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMARESH ANGADI.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SRI N DINESH S/O. LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI MAHESH S/O. LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT YEARS 4. SRI MADHUSUDHANA S/O. LATE NARAYANA 5. SMT ANUROOPA D/O. LATE NARAYANA Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33544 RFA No. 918 of 2008 ALL ARE RESIDING AT; NO.635 AND 636 2ND CROSS, HEBBAL BANGALORE - 560 024. 6. SMT HUTCHAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO NO.635 II CROSS, HEBBAL BANGALORE - 560 024. 7. SRI M SUBRAMANI S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.974, 4TH CROSS, SSA ROAD, HEBBAL BANGALORE - 560 024. 8. SRI M SRINIVAS S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.G-13 MRS QUARTERS, HEBBAL BANGALORE - 560 024. 9. SMT SHARADAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 635 2ND MAIN, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5; SRI. P.N. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; R-6, R-7 AND R-9 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33544 RFA No. 918 of 2008 THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF THE CPC R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT. 5.6.08 PASSED IN OS NO.6457/04 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT It is noted that on the earlier date i.e., 27.02.2025, none appeared for the appellant. The Court notice report received from the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru indicates that ”the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 9 are not residing at the given address". Even today i.e., 06.07.2026, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 4. The appeal is of the year 2008. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1