Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40557 (KAR)

KRISHNAPPA v. RANGAMMA @ PUTTARANGAMMA

WP/21978/2023 · 2025-11-27

S Vishwajith Shetty

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49390 WP No. 21978 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 21978 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O SRI HOTTE RANGANNA. 2. SHAKUNTHALAMMA, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 3. RAKESH S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING BEHIND CHOULTRY, OLD TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 227. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VAGEESHA N, ADV., -ABSENT) AND: RANGAMMA @ PUTTARANGAMMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMY @ RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227. ALSO AT R/AT SRIRANGA NIALAYA 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS NEW EXTENSION OF SRI. RAMANAGARA TUMKUR TOWN. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49390 WP No. 21978 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09/09/2021 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA IN OS NO. 59/2021 PASSED ON IA NO. 1, AND AFFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 17/08/2023 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN M.A. NO. 8/2022, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Matter called twice. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Even on the last date of hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. However, this Court had granted a week's time to comply office objections with an observation that if office objections are not complied, the petition shall be dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Inspite of peremptory order passed by this Court, office objections have not been complied and there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49390 WP No. 21978 of 2023 this petition. Under the circumstances, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28