Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71451 (KAR)

SMT PULLA BHATLA VENKATA SANTASAILAJA v. SRI INGUVA PHANI KIRAN

WP/26044/2017 · 2025-07-18

Lalitha Kanneganti

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27001 WP No. 26044 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26044 OF 2017 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. PULLA BHATLA VENKATA SANTASAILAJA W/O SRI INGUVA PHANI KIRAN D/O PULLA BHATLA VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI NARASINGH STREET 7TH LANE EXTENSION, BERHAMPUR,P.S.BADA BAZAAR DISTRICT-GANJAM ORISSA-760 006 …PETITIONER AND: SRI INGUVA PHANI KIRAN S/O INGUVA KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS EMPLOYEE OF T.C.S.COMPANY NEWPORT, U.K. PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.28, FLAT 403, ARUN APARTMENTS, OPP:K.P.H.B BHAGYANAGAR COLONY, KUKKATPALLI, THIRUMALAGIR, HYDERABAD-600 072 TELENGANA STATE …RESPONDENT (COPY SERVED ON ADVOCATE M.PRAKASH FOR RESPONDENT BEFORE TRIAL COURT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 22.2.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A ON I.A.VII AND 28.4.2014 AT ANNEXURE-D ON I.A.II Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27001 WP No. 26044 of 2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is of the year 2017. So far, the notice is not served on the respondent and no process is paid. When the matter came up on 17.07.2025, there was no representation on behalf of both the parties and the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'dismissal' today. 2. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is not showing any interest and he has not paid the process to serve notice to the respondent. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3