- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207512019 NC: 2026:KHC:39110 RFA No. 1549 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2019 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI P SELVARAJ S/O LATE PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4/62 MUTTANAHALI VILLAGE DENIKANIKOTTAI TALUK DODDA THIMMANAHALLI POST KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU-635 116 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY K.P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT CHINNAPONNU D/O LATE PERIYAPPA W/O CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.741, 28TH 'B' MAIN CORPORATION COLONY JAYANAGAR, 9TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 069 2. SMT LAKSHMI W/O PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.862, 28TH 'A' MAIN Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207512019 NC: 2026:KHC:39110 RFA No. 1549 of 2019 CORPORATION COLONY JAYANAGAR, 9TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 061 3. SRI M RAMU S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.868, 28TH 'A' MAIN CORPORATION COLONY JAYANAGAR, 9TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 061 4. SMT. SELVI S/O M.RAMUASAKAI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO.868, 28TH 'A' MAIN CORPORATION COLONY JAYANAGAR, 9TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 061 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D.S, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.9477/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207512019 NC: 2026:KHC:39110 RFA No. 1549 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is listed for the non-furnishing of PF, cover, acknowledgment with correct address to issue notice to respondent No.1. This appeal is posted before the Registry on 11.12.2025, 23.01.2026, 27.02.2026, 26.03.2026 and 10.07.2026. As such, the matter is listed before this Court. 2. However, there is no representation for the appellant even on the second call and since the appeal is of the year 2019, it could be presumed that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16