SRI A.RAMANJINAPPA v. SMT AMMAKKA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KHC:478
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1276 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI A.RAMANJINAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1A. SMT SUNITHA M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI RAMANJINAPPA 1B. MS B.R.SHILPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O LATE SRI RAMANJINAPPA 1C. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR B.R. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMANJINAPPA RESIDING AT NO.34, VARANASI MAIN ROAD, CHICKRAMAIAH EXTENSION KRISHNARAJAPRUAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 036 (BY SRI.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE- ABSENT) …PETITIONERS AND:
1. SMT AMMAKKA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 1A. SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI SANJEEVAIAH @ KUNJANNA EX-GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER OF KAGGALIPURA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:478 WP No. 1276 of 2020 SALUHUNASE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 1B. SMT.MANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O SRI BELEKALLI B.H. MUNIRAJAPPA BUDHIGERE VILLAGE, CHENNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110
SRI.NARAYANA @ NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. RAMASANJEEVAIAH R/AT KANAKAPURA ROAD, KAGALIPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
SRI. DANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMASANJEEVAIAH
SRI.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMASANJEEVAIAH RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDINT AT BUDHIGERE VILLAGE, CHENNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT PIN-562 110
SRI.SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA BUDHIGERE VILLAGE, CHENNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 110 (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R1(A), R1 (B), R2, R4 ARE SERVED AND REPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:478 WP No. 1276 of 2020 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:27.11.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING IA NO.19 IN O.S.NO.1501 OF 2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is of the year 2020. Even till today, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not furnished the PF for issuance of notice to the respondents. The matter was listed before this Court for orders. On 07.01.2025, as there was no representation on behalf of both the parties, this matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
2. Today also there is no representation on behalf of both the parties. It appears that the petitioners are not interested to pursue the matter.
Operative part
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — art. 227.
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.