Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18736 (KAR)

SMT DEVIRAMMA v. SMT DEVAMMA

WP/36889/2018 · 2025-01-08

Lalitha Kanneganti

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:471 WP No. 36889 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 36889 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.DEVIRAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. SMT.SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SRI B.K.THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BANAVARA VILLAGE, BANAVARA, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DANAPPA P.PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.DEVAMMA SINCE DEAD HER LR’S 1A. SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 1B. SMT.CHANDRAMMA W/O SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 1C. SMT.HEMAVATHI W/O NIRANJAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:471 WP No. 36889 of 2018 2. SRI LOKESH S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O B.K.GANESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. SRI JAYANNA S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. SRI.B.K.GANESH S/O B.K.KASTURAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BANAVARA VILLAGE, BANAVARA, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THEJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 16.07.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE IN O.S.NO.63/2015, IA-II/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is of the year 2018. Even till today, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not furnished the PF for issuance of notice to the respondents. The matter was listed before this Court for orders. On 06.01.2025, as there was no - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:471 WP No. 36889 of 2018 representation on behalf of both the parties, this matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 2. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners are not interested to pursue the matter. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9