- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1265 WP No. 105044 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105044 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. D. V. JYOTHI D/O. D. VENKANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER AND FATHER SRI.D. VENKANAGOUDA S/O RUDRAGOUDA R/AT WARD NO.1, JOISARA KERI, NEAR SRI SHANKARAMATH, HOSAPET ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST BALLARI. 2. D.V. MAHESHWARI W/O SANGAMESHA MALIPATIL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC :DOCTOR, REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER AND FATHER SRI.D. VENKANAGOUDA S/O RUDRAGOUDA R/AT WARD NO.1, JOISARA KERI, NEAR SRI SHANKARAMATH, HOSAPET ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.D. VENKANAGOUDA, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. CHIEF OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARAPANAHALLI. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.27 16:33:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1265 WP No. 105044 of 2021 2. ALTAF S/O H. DADASAB, MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, ANJANEYA BADAVANE, HARAPANAHALLI-583131, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) (RESPONDENT NO.-2 NOTICE REFUSED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (1) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING ORDER DATED 06-02-2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HARAPANAHALLI (IN THE ORDER SHEET) ANNEXURE-A IN CIVIL MISC.NO.9/2013 (APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2(A)) AND (2) SIMULTANEOUSLY ALLOW EITHER AS PER PRAYED IN THE ANNEXURE-J OR IN THE ANNEXURE-J1 6.8.21 (IA NO.I/2016) AND ANNEXURE-M (IA NO.II/2016) 6.8.21 (AS PER PRAYED IN 3RD PARA OF AFFIDAVIT) AND COURT, DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner party-in-person is before this court seeking for the following reliefs : (1) Issue writ of certiorari, quashing order dated 06-02-2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1265 WP No. 105044 of 2021 J.M.F.C. Harapanahalli (in the order sheet) Annexure-A in Civil Misc.No.9/2013 (application filed under order 39 rule 2(a)) (2) Simultaneously allow either as per prayed in the Annexure-J or in the Annexure-J1 6.8.21 (Ia No.1/2016) and Annexure-M (Ia No.II/2016) 6.8.21 (as per prayed in 3rd para of affidavit). (3) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court, deems fit to grant under the facts ad circumstances, in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioners represented by their father and GPA holder. The said father and GPA holder had made a request for appearing in the matter as party-in- person on behalf of the petitioner. The said request having been referred to the Party-in-person Committee ascertaining the fitness to represent the matter. The Party-in-person Committee vide its order dated 04.09.2021 rejected the said request. Subsequently, he made a request to this Court to appear as party-in-person on behalf the petitioners. 3. This court vide order dated 01.06.2022 rejected the said request and permitted him to engage a counsel. Thereafter, a review application to review - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1265 WP No. 105044 of 2021 the said order dated 01.06.2022 was filed, which application also came to be rejected on 24.06.2022. Thus from the records, it is clear that the Party-in- person Committee as also this Court have rejected the request to appear as party-in-person. 4. Today when the party-in-person was present before this Court, he was given an option to engage a counsel to conduct the matter. However, he has flatly refused the same contending that he would not be engaging any counsel. Even it was suggested him that the matter could be referred to the Legal Services Authority to enable a counsel to be appointed on his behalf, which is also flatly refused by him. In that view of the matter, when this Court has rejected his request twice earlier to appear as party-in-person, which has attained finality not having been challenged. The father of the petitioners cannot be allowed to appear as party-in-person in the present matter. Since he has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1265 WP No. 105044 of 2021 flatly refused to engage a counsel, no purpose would be served by retaining the matter, petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18