Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57643 (KAR)

MR. P N LOKESH v. MR.K. RAJENDRA PRASAD REDDY

WP/9751/2025 · 2025-08-19

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32130 WP No. 9751 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.9751 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. P N LOKESH S/O G NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 606. 2. MR. MANJUNATH, S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT DAAMADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. K. RAJENDRA PRASAD REDDY S/O TATHIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.446, 3RD CROSS, B.T. ROAD, HINKAL, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 606. 2. MR. C. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE KULLANAIKA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32130 WP No. 9751 of 2025 3. MRS. MUNIYAMMA W/O C. CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4. MR. MAHADEVA S/O LATE KULLANAIKA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5. MR. PRAKASHA S/O LATE KULLANAIKA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 6. MR. RAVI S/O C CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 7. MR. DEVANNA S/O C CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 8. MR. KEMPARAJU S/O C CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS SL NO.2 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT UDBURU VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK RAVIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 IN O.S NO.434/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32130 WP No. 9751 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition. 2. The memo reads as follows: “The Petitioner is withdrawing the above petition since the matter is settled amicably settled between the parties. Hence, the urgency.” In terms of the memo, the writ petition is disposed as withdrawn. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13