SRI. P. G. THAMMAIAH v. SRI. ARMUGAM VEERAPANDIAN @ VEERAPANDIAN
WP/20635/2025 · 2025-12-18
Pradeep Singh Yerur
Original Suitbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 88783 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 88783 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54518 WP No. 20635 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.20635 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. G. THAMMAIAH S/O GANAPATHY P A AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT VIJAYANAGAR III STAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571218 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHAFEER A A.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. ARMUGAM VEERAPANDIAN @ VEERAPANDIAN S/O APPAVU ARUMUGAM AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. 3151, 15TH FLOOR SOBHA WINCHESTERE, 200 FEET RADIAL ROAD KOVILAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 117
2. BENNY SEBASTIAN S/O M THOMAS SEBASTIAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO. 48, 1ST CROSS, CIL LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI
Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54518 WP No. 20635 of 2025
R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032.
3. SRI MELVYN B THOMAS S/O BENNY THOMAS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 48, 1ST CROSS, CIL LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560032.
… RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD. 08.04.2025 IN O.S.
NO.47/2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET VIDE ANNX-A ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
There is no representation on behalf of petitioner.
2. On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that when the matter came up before the Court on 15.9.2025, this Court passed the order granting 10 days' time to the petitioner to rectify the objections,
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54518 WP No. 20635 of 2025
failing which the petition would stand dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Thereafter, when the matter came up before the Court on 25.10.2025,
learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not responding to his phone calls and sought a week's time to make alternative arrangement. Accordingly, this Court granted a week's time.
4. Again when the matter came up before the Court on 9.12.2025, this Court passed the order granting a week's time to comply the objections raised by the Registry, failing which to list the matter on 18.12.2025 for dismissal.
5. Today, when the matter is called out, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Despite granting sufficient time, objections raised by the
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54518 WP No. 20635 of 2025
Registry are not complied. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE
GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46