MUMTAZUNNISA v. THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO
CRP/600/2018 · 2025-10-23
V Srishananda
Original Suitbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 68216 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 68216 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42108 CRP No. 600 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 600 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. MUMTAZUNNISA AGED 47 YEARS
2.
AFIZULLA REHMAN AGED 23 YEARS
3.
SHAFIQ REHMAN KHAN AGED 21 YEARS
THE 1ST IS WIDOW AND 2 AND 3 ARE SONS OF LATE ABDUL RAKEEB, AND R/AT NO.84/3B, DASAPPA GARDEN, OPP. TO MUNESHWARA TEMPLE CHAMUNDI NAGAR, BENGALURU-32 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHAMS AHMED PATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE LTD., CELLAR FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
2. SRI.G.R.RAMESH S/O G.N.RAGHUNATH, AGED 43 YEARS R/AT NO.32, 6TH CROSS,
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42108 CRP No. 600 of 2018
RMV IIND STAGE, BENGALURU-94.
3. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED 54 YEARS W/O R.SHANKAR
4. S.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED 30 YEARS S/O R.SHANKAR
BOTH ARE R/AT 6/58, 1ST MAIN, AZAD NAGAR, CHAMRAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU-18.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HEMACHANDRA R RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI K.DIWAKAR AND SMT.K.SUMAN, ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4; R1 SERVED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.14 IN O.S.NO.6609/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING I.A.14 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC R/W SECTION 11 OF KARNATAKA COURT FEE AND SUIT VALUATION ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42108 CRP No. 600 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
None appears for the revision petitioners. Even in the last date of hearing there was no representation on behalf of the revision petitioners. Revision petition is of the year 2018, yet to be admitted.
2. In the interest of justice, this Court listed the matter to today as a last chance for arguing on the admission.
3. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, revision petition stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
MR