- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5375 MFA No. 9333 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9333 OF 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNI VENKATAPPA S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560067. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. INDU SHEKAR B.T., ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI. SHAMANNA S/O. LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI. S.RAMESH S/O. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SRI. S.SURESH S/O. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5375 MFA No. 9333 of 2017 6. SRI. SATHISH S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 7. SRI. HARISH S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 8. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. PAPAIAH, W/O. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 9. SMT. MANJULA D/O. JAYAMMA AND MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF RAMEGOWDANAGAR, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, KADUGODI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 067. 10. SMT. KANTHAMMA @ LAKSHMAMMA D/O. PAPAIAH, W/O. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. PINCODE-563101. 11. SRI. C.M.PAPAIAH, S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 12. SRI. C.P.LOKESH MANJUNATH S/O. C.M.PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5375 MFA No. 9333 of 2017 RESPONDENTS NO.11 AND 12 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. PINCODE-560067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDAN S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 AND R9 TO R10; SRI. VENKATESH S., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8 AND R12; SRI. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R11) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter is called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 2. The appeal is filed in 2017. We have almost completed a month in 2026. The appeal is pending for almost nine years. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. It appears, the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26