Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 797 (KAR)

SRI. Y. GOPALA v. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA

WP/25547/2024 · 2026-03-26

H T Narendra Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17419 WP No. 25547 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25547 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. Y. GOPALA S/O LATE YELLAIAH AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4, KURI MANDI BLOCK RAJENDRA NAGARA MYSURU TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANAGHA S DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. DEVAMMA D/O RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT TAVAREKATTE GRAMA, CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD MYSORE-570022. 3. ANJANEYA S/O RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.198, II MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17419 WP No. 25547 of 2024 7TH CROSS, K C LAYOUT KURUBARAHALLI MYSORE - 570022. 4. LAXMIDEVI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D/O RANGAMMA RESIDENT OF HOSAHUNDI GATE VILLAGE, UTTANAHALLI ROAD MYSORE-570022. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS ON IA NO 4 (A) DTD 03.08.24 IN OS.760/22 ON THE FILE VII ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND TO GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN OS NO. 1736/2013 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This Court on 16.12.2025 has passed the following order: “Two weeks time is granted to comply the objection/s raised by the Registry, failing which, list this matter for dismissal.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17419 WP No. 25547 of 2024 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of their best effort, they have not received any instructions from the client to prosecute the case. 3. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 4. Therefore, in view of the order dated 16.12.2025, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49