- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:476 WP No. 41146 of 2019 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. 41146 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SIR M.A.SURESH BABU S/O M.S.ANANDRAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT VINAYAKA EXTENSION HOSADURGA TOWN HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N.VEENA ARUN, ADVOCATE- ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI K.BASAVARAJU S/O KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT.PREMA W/O K.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. SOWMYA D/O K.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 4. BHAGYA D/O K.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 5. MYLARI S/O K.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.5 MINOR, REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:476 WP No. 41146 of 2019 RESPONDENT NO.2, AS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF RESPONDENT NO.5 6. SRI.NINGAPPA S/O MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT MARUTHI EXTENSION HOSADURGA TOWN, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 7. SMT.HANUMAKKA W/O MLLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS 8. SMT.UMA W/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 9. SMT SHASHIKALA D/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O YALAKEPPANAHATTY NEAR SIDDARAMA NAGAR HOSADURGA 10. SRI.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 11. SRI GOPI S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT DURGAMMANNA BEEDI HOSDURGA TOWN …RESPONDENTS (R7, R8, R9 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/D 8/8/2024 WP STANDS DISMISSED AGAINST R1-R6, R10 & R11) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 08.03.2019 IN M.A.NO.9/2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2018 ON I.A.V FILED UNDER - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:476 WP No. 41146 of 2019 ORDER 39 RULE1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.218/2016 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA. 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 2019. On 07.01.2025, as there was no 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 both the parties. It appears that the petitioner is 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.: 15