- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5797 WP No. 101393 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101393 OF 2024 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: SHRI. MALAGOUDA S/O KALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: “AASHIRWAD” PLOT NO.223, HUDCO COLONY, I.B.ROAD, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591 304. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJAY.S.KATAGERI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ROOPA @ ROOPALI W/O NINGAPPA JAYAGOUDAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NANDAGAON, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591 304. 2. KUMARI ARPITA D/O NINGAPPA JAYAGOUDAR, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: NANDAGAON, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591 304. 3. KUMARI ARCHITA D/O NINGAPPA JAYAGOUDAR, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: NANDAGAON, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591 304. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI AND SRI. VITTHAL.S.TELI., ADVOCATES FOR R1; R2-3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5797 WP No. 101393 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sanjay S.Katageri, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Yash Nadakarni., counsel on behalf of Sri.Vitthal S.Teli., for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Order dated: 25-11-2022 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Athani on I.A.No.6 in MVC No.671/2016 vide Annexure-G herein and consequently allow I.A. No.6. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care. 4. The short controversy is about the vakalath filed by counsel Sri.B.R.Rao. One Ningappa died in a road traffic accident. His wife, children and parents filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC No.671/2016. It is pivotal to note - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5797 WP No. 101393 of 2024 that claimants were represented by a counsel namely Malagouda. During the pendency of the claim petition, the wife and children of the deceased issued legal notice to the advocate Malagouda and expressed their unwillingness to continue his vakalath. Accordingly, his services were discharged and wife and children engaged the services of an advocate namely Sri.B.R.Rao. The petitioner moved an application regarding the maintainability of the vakalath by counsel Sri.B.R.Rao. The objections were filed. The Trial Court rejected the application. In my view rejection is just and proper. As already noted above the wife and children of the deceased issued notice and discontinued the services of advocate Malagouda. Moreover, the Tribunal rejected the application on 25.11.2022. There is no stay of the impugned order. The vakalath filed by Sri.B.R.Rao was accepted and he has conducted the case on behalf of the wife and children of the deceased and the petitioner appears to have conducted the case on behalf of the parents. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for the rejection of the application is just and proper. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5797 WP No. 101393 of 2024 5. Resultantly, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62