Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2634 (KAR)

SMT. PAVITHRA. P v. M/S. NIVARA HOME FINANCE LTD.,

WP/27259/2025 · 2026-04-07

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19051 WP No. 27259 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27259 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. PAVITHRA P., D/O PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT- NO.81, 1ST MAIN PATNAGERE GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE VANAKANAHALLI POST, KASABAHOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT- 562 106 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA M.V., ADVOCATE- ABSENT) AND: 1. M/S. NIVARA HOME FINANCE LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 22,23,24,25/101/3, 3RD FLOOR, BNR COMPLEX, SRI RAMA LAYOUT, OPP. RBI LAYOUT, 7TH PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI.KIRISHNAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19051 WP No. 27259 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SRI. SRIDHAR RAJU.H.P NO. 160, WARD NO.21, BEHIND KEB NARAYANASWAMY LAYOUT ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562 106 3. SRI.NAGENDRA T., R/AT- NO. 373, PROPERTY NO.131 PATANAGEREGOLLAHALLI, VANAKANAHALLY KASABA ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY D., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.1027/2025 FOR PERUSAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19051 WP No. 27259 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is of the year 2025. When the matter came up on 27.10.2025, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'dismissal'. 2. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61