SRI v. NARAYANASWAMY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
with, the writ petition shall stand dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. VI r. 17
Key paragraphs
- Para 1717. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O SRI. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT DODDACHINNAHALLI VILLAGE & POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R15; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.02.2020 NOTICE TO R1 TO R14 IS DISPENSED WITH; R-16 SERVED) THIS WRIT…
Judgment
SRI. V. NARAYANASWAMY S/O VENKATAGIRINAYAKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT DUDUVANAHALLI VILLAGE MAZARA HOSAMANEGALU MAASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 (BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
SRI. VENKATAGIRI NAYAKA S/O LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
SMT. NARLAPALLAMMA D/O VENKATAGIRI NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SMT. NANJAMMA D/O VENKATAGIRI NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
SMT. RAMAKKA D/O VENKATAGIRI NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21653 WP No. 2953 of 2020 HC-KAR
SMT. NEELAMMA D/O VENKATAGIRI NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
SMT. NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE SONNEPALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE SONNEPALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
SRI. RAVI S/O LATE SONNEPALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY W/O LATE GOPLAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE GOPLAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
SMT. SHOBA D/O LATE GOPLAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
SRI. HEERAPPA NAYAKA S/O LATE MUNIVARADA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21653 WP No. 2953 of 2020 HC-KAR
SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE RAGHUPATHI NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 15 ARE R/AT. DUDUVANAHALLI VILLAGE MAZARA HOSAMANEGALU MAASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130
SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O NARLEPALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT SHAPARAHALLI VILLAGE GUDISADANAHALLI POST HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-635 110
Operative part
SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O SRI. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT DODDACHINNAHALLI VILLAGE & POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R15; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.02.2020 NOTICE TO R1 TO R14 IS DISPENSED WITH; R-16 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, PASSED ON I.A.NO.13, UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.204/2015 DATED 30.11.2019 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21653 WP No. 2953 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This Court on 01.04.2025 passed the following order: "On 16.01.2025, the following order was passed: "A week's time is granted for compliance of office objections. If the office objections are not complied with, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. " Inspite of it, no steps have been taken. Learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks further time to do the needful. Finally, one week time is granted to the petitioner to do the needful subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. "
2. Today the matter is listed for non-furnishing of PF, ack, cover copies etc., to issue notice to Respondent No.17 and also non-payment of cost as ordered. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21653 WP No. 2953 of 2020 HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a memo on 25.4.2025 to retire. The memo of retirement is enclosed with a postal cover which indicates that the same is returned to sender and not served.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: with, the writ petition shall stand dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VI r. 17.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.