Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75656 (KAR)

SRI Y RAMA @ Y RAMU v. SRI M MUNICHINNAPPA

WP/16693/2024 · 2025-07-30

Jyoti M

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.16693/2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1 . SRI Y RAMA @ Y RAMU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT R LALITHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE RAMA, 2 . SRI VENKATESH MURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE RAMA 3 . SMT R ASHA SUNDARI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O SRI K VENKATESH D/O LATE RAMA 4 . SMT R SOUBHAGYA LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O SRI K RAVIKUMAR ALL ARE R/O NO. 10, SEETHAMMA ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NEAR SRI SAGAR HOTEL, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560084 …PETITIONER/S (BY SRI./SMT.: M MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) W.P.NO.16693/2024 2 AND 1 . SRI M MUNICHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O SRI YELLAPPA 2 . SMT MUNICHINNAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O SRI M MUNICHINNAPPA BOTH ARE R/O NO 21, SHIVARAMAN BUILDING, THIRUMALA AGENCY NAGAIAHNAPALYA MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560033. …RESPONDENT/S THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 ON THE MEMO DTD. 27.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN O.S.NO. 26568/2009 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XXVIII TADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, MAYOHALL, (CCH.NO. 29) BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-“A” AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE MEMO DATED: 27.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-“E” FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, MAYOHALL (CCH-NO. 29) BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER. CORAM: HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI W.P.NO.16693/2024 3 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI) Proxy counsel on behalf of SR.M.Manjunath., for the petitioners has appeared through video conferencing. Counsel for the petitioners submits that short accommodation may be granted to comply with the office objections. This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is plain. The writ Petition is filed in 2024. Now we are in the month of July, 2025. It’s almost a year, the office objections are not complied with. However, in the interest of justice and as a last chance, finally, a week’s time is granted to comply with the office objections, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) payable to Advocates’ Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. If the office objections are not complied with within a week’s time, the Writ Petition stands dismissed without reference to the Bench. It is made clear that the petitioners will have right of audience only if the cost is paid. W.P.NO.16693/2024 4 Office is directed to permit the petitioners to comply with the office objections subject to proof of payment of cost. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TYPED BY : SK CASE WORKER : JK COMPARED BY : JK COPY Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR