- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33553 MFA No. 489 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJU S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT SINGAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJU, APPELLANT (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SMT. GEETHA, W/O LATE CHNDRASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. SOWMYA C. D/O. LATE CHANDRASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 3. RAMYA C. D/O LATE CHANDRASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 4. SANDEEP C. S/O LATE CHANDRASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33553 MFA No. 489 of 2020 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1, 5. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O. LATE SANNASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT SINGAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105. 6. SRI. NANDISHA, S/O. BOREGOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, SHANTHIPURA, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 114. …RESPONDENTS (R-1 TO R-6 ARE SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.24.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1223/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, HUNSUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33553 MFA No. 489 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This Court vide order dated 19.11.2015 passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the appellant is present. A memo of retirement has been filed on behalf of the appellant. The memo was sent to the appellant by registered post and it was served on the appellant's mother. In-spite of service, there is no representation on behalf of appellants. Hence, time is granted as last chance. If there is no representation on the next date of hearing, suitable orders will be passed. Learned counsel Sri. Pancham R.D., is permitted to retire on behalf of the appellant". 2. Despite the above order, neither learned counsel for appellant nor the appellant are present before this Court. 3. Under such circumstances, it could be presumed that, appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1