Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17714 (KAR)

LT COL W E SATHYANARAYANA v. W E SAMBANDAM

WP/50938/2016 · 2025-04-21

M I Arun

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16260 WP No. 50938 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 50938 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. LT. COL. W.E. SATHYANARAYANA S/O W EKAMBARAM AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS PRESENTELY R/AT NO.236 M.M. ROAD, COX TOWN BANGALORE-560 005. …PETITIONER [BY LT. COL. W.E. SATHYANARAYANA, PARTY-IN-PERSON (ABSENT)] AND: 1. W E SAMBANDAM S/O LATE W. EKAMBARAM AGED: MAJOR R/AT NO.21-22 MUNISWAMY ROAD QUEENS ROAD CROSS BANGALORE-560 051. 2(a). SOMANATH S/O GNAAMBIGAI AMMAL Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16260 WP No. 50938 of 2016 AGED MAJOR 2(b). A RANIAMMAL D/O GNANAMBIGAI AMMAL AGED MAJOR 2(c). THILLAI AMMAL D/O GNANAMBIGAI AMMAL AGED MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.2(a) TO 2(c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.AP543 16TH STREET, IV SECTOR K.K. NAGAR, CHENNAI-78. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SATHYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; R.2(a TO c) ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 23.02.2017.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2012 IN W.P. NO.34959/2011 (GM-CPC) (PENDING FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS), VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND DISPOSE OF FDP. NO.88/2000 (CCH-18) BASED ON THE ORDERS DATED 30.04.2011 IN I.A. NO.30, VIDE ANNEXURE-F., WHICH HAS REACHED A FINALITY AND DISTRIBUTE THE SALE PROCEED, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16260 WP No. 50938 of 2016 ORAL ORDER None appears for the petitioner-party-in-person. Even on the last occasion none appeared for the petitioner-party-in-person. The writ petition is of the year 2016. It appears that the petitioner-party-in-person is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6