Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28959 (KAR)

SRI. SULAIMAN H.E., v. SMT. PREMAKUMARI,

WP/16118/2023 · 2025-04-26

Lok Adalath

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 CONCILIATORS PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H T NARENDRAPRASAD & SRI. H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, MEMBER W.P. No.16118/2023 (GM-CPC) (Lok Adalat No.3930/2025) BETWEEN: SRI. SULAIMAN H.E. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE ISMAIL R/AT BYADAGOTTA VILLAGE, KODLIPETE HOBLI SOMAVARPET TALUK KKODAGU DISTRIC-571236. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R, ADVCOATE) AND: 1 . SMT. PREMAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE B.K.SURESHA 2 . SMT. SHEETAL AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O LATE B.K.SURESHA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 285 2 SRI. SIDDESHWARA NILAYA AREKRE, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL B.T. S LAYOUT, ROAD BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560076. 3 . SRI. KRISHNAIAHCHAR (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS) SRI. DINESHA. B.K AGED ABOUT 51 Y EARS S/O LATE KRISHNAIACHAR R/AT YASALURU VILLAGE, YASALURU HOBLI,SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-571237. 4 . SMT. SAVITHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O HARISCHANDRA ACHAR D/O LATE KRISHNAIAHCHAR R/AT BYADAGOTTA VILLAGE KODLIPET HOBLI, SOMAVARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236. 5 . SRI. UDAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAIAHACHAR R/AT YASALURU VILLAGE NEAR CANARA BANK, YASALURU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-571237. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KESHAVA KUMAR B, ADVOCATE ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/07/2023 ON IA NO. 2 IN F.D.P. NO. 01 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAKLESHPUR, HASSAN AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. 3 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED: CONCILIATION ORDER In view of the order dated 20.02.2025, passed in F.D.P.No. 1/2022, this writ petition does not survive for consideration. 2. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER Cm/-