Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33483 (KAR)

SRI ASHOK KUMAR v. SRI G M VIRUPAKSHAPPA

WP/5274/2020 · 2025-04-08

M I Arun

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15075 WP No. 5274 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 5274 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, R/A NO.48, BANNIMANTAPA A EXTENSION, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE H.S, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SRI. G.M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, S/O MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.1660/35, 11TH CROSS, THARALABABU BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 2. SMT. PRAMEELA ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O ASHOK KUMAR, R/A NO.48, BANNIMANTAPA 'A' EXTENSION, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001. 3. KUM. ANUPAMA D/O ASHOK KUMAR Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15075 WP No. 5274 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 4. KUM. ANANYA AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, D/O ASHOK KUMAR BOTH DEFEDANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND, NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER i.e., RESPONDENT NO.2, RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.48, BANNIMANTAPA 'A' EXTENSION, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 05.11.2019 ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.217/2014 ON THE FILE THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU ORDERS DATED 05.11.2019 IN ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15075 WP No. 5274 of 2020 ORAL ORDER None appears for the petitioner. Even on the last date of hearing, none appeared for the petitioner. The Writ Petition is of the year 2020. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. 2. Hence, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT: BHK