- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5031 WP No. 107148 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 107148 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. LAKKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA DHAVALESHWAR, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SUNANDA W/O RAMAPPA DHAVALESHWAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TALUK RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SEVANTA W/O. RAMAPPA DHAVALESHWAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TALUK RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PAVAN DODDATTI., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT. BHAGAWWA W/O KALLAPPA DADHUTI, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 101. 2. KUMARI PINKI D/O. PRAKASH DADHUTI, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O.CHIMMAD VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5031 WP No. 107148 of 2024 TALUK RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 3. RAJU S/O. KALLAPPA DADHUTI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TALUK RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 4. SURESH S/O. KALLAPPA DADHUTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TALUK RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 5. SEEMANT S/O. DUNDAPPA BYAKOD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TALUK RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 6. GURUBAI W/O. BALAPPA BAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TALUK RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 7. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, BAGALKOT-587 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5031 WP No. 107148 of 2024 ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the petitioners are not represented, either personally or through video conferencing. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 12.03.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the petitioners, the petition was ordered to be listed on 19.03.2025. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the case is called, the petitioners are not represented, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9