- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22344 W.P. No.4882/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4882/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. T. JAGADAMABA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS WIFE OF LATE THAVARE CARE OF SAROJAMMA R/AT. HULITHOTTILU VILLAGE HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VASANTHA LAKSHMI H.V. ADV., [ABSENT]) AND: SRI. T. ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON OF SRI. THIPPERUDRAPPA AGRICULTURIST R/AT. HULITHOTTILU VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-570401. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE APPEAL R.A.NO.16/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HIRIYUR, PERUSE THE SAME AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.9.19 ON THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.1 FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN R.A.NO.16/2019 AS PER ANENXRUE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22344 W.P. No.4882/2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER The order dated 18.06.2025 reads as under: "This Court vide order dated 07.12.2022, granted two weeks time to take necessary steps for filing an application seeking substituted service of notice on the respondent. On 25.03.2025, when the matter was listed, none appeared for the petitioner. Again on 09.04.2025, a week's time was granted to do the needful. Today when the matter is called in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session, there is no representation for the petitioner, nor steps have been taken. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. However, a week's time is granted to do the needful. List on 25.06.2025. It is made clear that if steps are not taken, appropriate orders will be passed." 2. Even today steps are not taken and there is no representation for the petitioner when the matter is called in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session. 3. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition and in view of the aforesaid order dated 18.06.2025, the petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11