- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31496 W.P. No.22685/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22685/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VASANTH SHET SINCE DIED HIS LR’S. SMT. SMITHA VASANTH W/O LATE VASANTH SHET AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SRI. KARTHIK SHET S/O LATE VASANTH SHET AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 3. SMT. KAVYA SHET D/O LATE VASANTH SHET AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.107 VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, 4TH MAIN NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE SUNDARAM SHETTY NAGAR BBMP, BENGALURU - 560076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. MUNE GOWDA, ADV., [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT. R.M. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. SRI. H.V. THOUNTADARIYA S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31496 W.P. No.22685/2021 2. DEAD BY HIS LR’S. SMT. RAGINI W/O LATE THOUNTADARIYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 3. SMT. GAYATHRIDEVI D/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 4. SMT. H.V. RAJESHAWARI D/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 5. SRI. H.V. SANATH KUMAR S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562157. 6. SRI. MOSHIN SHARIFF S/O A.M. SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.269, 14TH CROSS CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR C. ANGADI, ADV., FOR 6 R2 SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:15.04.2026, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 TO R5 IS SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 20.02.2021 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.2120/2006, AND DISMISSED THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.5 & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31496 W.P. No.22685/2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners when the matter is called in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session. Even on 16.06.2026 also there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27