Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20145 (KAR)

SMT MALASHREE JANGANNAVARA v. SRI M ULLAS

CRP/760/2025 · 2026-06-05

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26894 CRP No. 760 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 760 OF 2025 (IO-) BETWEEN: SMT MALASHREE JANGANNAVARA W/O SRI. CHANDRU JANGANNAVARA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 113, GUDISAGARA, DHARWAD-582 208 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BEEMAPPA THALIGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M.ULLAS S/O LATE. M.B. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 1295, 4TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040 2. SMT.T.B. MAMATHA, D/O T.D. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/A. NO.1295, 4TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040 3. SRI. SHIVA K., S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A. NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26894 CRP No. 760 of 2025 2ND CROSS, ANUBHAVA NAGARA, MOODALAPALYA, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 072 4. SRI. M. PARAMESH, S/O LATE P.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.32/2, 2ND MAIN, MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040 5. PADMAVATHI, W/O LATE P.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.32/2, 2ND MAIN, MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.6 IN OS NO.3289/2022N ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY., REJECTING THE IA NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26894 CRP No. 760 of 2025 ORAL ORDER When the matter came up before this Court on 02.06.2026, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 2. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3