Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 65111 (KAR)

SHANKAR v. SMT. SHIVAKANTHAMMA

RP/200040/2024 · 2025-08-11

Ravi V Hosmani

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4566 RP No. 200040 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REVIEW PETITION NO. 200040 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHANKAR, S/O GANGARAM RATHOD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI AND OWNER OF AUTO R/O HOTHPET MELINA TANDA, TQ SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR - 585 223. …PETITIONER [BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: 1. SMT. SHIVAKANTHAMMA, W/O LATE GURULINGAPPA HALBHAVI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD 2. MAREMMA, D/O LATE GURULINGAPPA HALBHAVI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 3. SHARANAPPA, S/O LATE GURULINGAPPA HALBHAVI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4566 RP No. 200040 of 2024 4. BHIMARAYA S/O LATGE GURULINGAPPA HALBHAVI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT ALL ARE R/O URUSUNDAGI TQ: SHAHAPUR, NOW AT PLOT NO 32, BUDDA NAGAR, KALABURAGI - 585 101. 5. SRI HANMANTHRAYA, S/O SIDDALINGAPPA GOUDDA NADAGOUDA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER R/O URUSGUNDAGI, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR - 585 223. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2023 PASSED IN MFA NO.201801/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DISMISSING THE ABOVE SAID MFA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4566 RP No. 200040 of 2024 ORAL ORDER None appears. 2. Though this review petition is filed on 26.04.2024, same is suffering from office objections despite granting sufficient time, which have not been complied with. Even cost imposed for extension of time is not paid. This would indicate petitioner is not diligently pursuing this review petition and same is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2