- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288162020 NC: 2026:KHC:49523 RFA No. 1294 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1294 OF 2020 (INJ) BETWEEN: DR. PRATHAP KUMAR SAHANI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. MR. SAHANI NO.P.S.POLY CLINIC, NO.50/1/1, GROUND FLOOR, DEV TOWERS, 2ND CROSS MANUVANA, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. BYSANI RAJESH, S/O. SRI. BYSANI KRISHNA MOORTHY, AGED MAJOR, 2. SMT. ATHULURI UMA KUMARI, W/O. SRI. BYSANI RAJESH, AGED MAJOR, BOTH THE SL.NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.224, GROUND FLOOR, 3RD AVENUE, 6TH MAIN, TEACHERS COLONY, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288162020 NC: 2026:KHC:49523 RFA No. 1294 of 2020 KORMANGALA, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, RAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED ON 28.05.2020 IN OS NO.1737/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY AND TO ALLOW THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2020 passed in O.S.No.1737/2019 by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., I.A.No.2, seeking rejection of the plaint, and consequently rejected the plaint. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288162020 NC: 2026:KHC:49523 RFA No. 1294 of 2020 2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit schedule property had been mortgaged by its original owner with Corporation Bank, Bengaluru. It was further submitted that, due to non-payment of the loan instalments, the Bank took over the possession of the suit schedule property on 02.08.2026 by evicting the appellant herein, who was in occupation of the property as a tenant. 3. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the appellant is no longer in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the relief sought in the present appeal does not survive for consideration and the appeal has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18