- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5214-DB R.F.A. No.1947/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1947/2022 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI. HADAMATA RAM S/O SRI. NARASING RAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.38/1, 1ST CROSS DAYANANDANAGAR RAMACHANDRAPURAM BENGALURU-560021. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. KAVITHA JAIN D/O LATE SRI. HEERALAL NAHATA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 2. SMT. H. SMITHA KOTHARI D/O LATE SRI. HEERALAL NAHATA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.31 SHANTHIKUNJ, CHOWLGALLI SIDDANNA LANE NEAR JUMMA MASJID ROAD BENGALURU-560002. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5214-DB R.F.A. No.1947/2022 3. M/S CANARA BANK KORAMANGALA BRANCH SITUATED AT 100 FEET ROAD 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560034 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV., FOR R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.5393/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU CITY AND AFTER VERIFYING AND EXAMINING THE SAME MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2022 AND THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT BY SETTING ASIDE THE SAME & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5214-DB R.F.A. No.1947/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) Learned counsel for the appellant has file a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The memo reads as under: "The Appellant in the above case submits that, the case has been amicably settled between the parties. The Appellant do not want to prosecute the above Appeal. The Appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. The Appellant submits that, the Court Fee paid by the Appellant may be ordered to be refunded to the Appellant. Hence, this memo." 2. In view of the aforesaid memo, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The Registry is directed to refund the eligible Court fee to the appellant on proper identification. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5