- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1072 WP No. 4556 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 4556 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HALLI HANUMAJJARA HANUMANTHAPPA, SON OF HALLI HANUMAJJARA HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF HIREMEGALAGERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TQ, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 583 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. KANCHIKERE MADGAPPA, SON OF LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. DURUGAPPA, SON OF LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3. KANCHIKERE BASAVARAJ, SON OF LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. P. DURUGAPPA, SON OF DODDA DURUGAPPA, SON OF LATE KENCHAPPA, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1072 WP No. 4556 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 5. UCHANGIDURGADA ANJINAPPA, SON OF LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 6. P. GONEPPA, SON OF LATE KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HIREMEGALERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DISTRICT - 583 131. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2020, NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 DISPENSED WITH; R4 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 277 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER 12.12.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO.05 OF 2018 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT HARAPANAHALLI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.235/2013 DATED 07.08.2018 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HARAPANAHALLI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1072 WP No. 4556 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This is a writ petition of the year 2019. This Court has granted time on several occasions to comply with the office objections. In spite of that, the petitioner had failed to comply with the office objections. On 09.01.2025, when the matter came up before this Court, as there was no representation on behalf of both the parties, this Court had directed the matter to be listed under the caption 'dismissal'. 2. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK