✦ Karnataka High Court

Sri, SB. ?vlanjnnarh v. VISWANATH & .MK. SHIVARAJU

AS. PACHHAPURE WRIT PETITION No. 47252 of 2011PACHHAPURE

Case at a glance

Bench
PACHHAPURE

Provisions considered

Judgment

Sri, SB. ?vlanjnnarh, S/o Sal. Venkatara.vs..ppa Since dead 1w his LR’s 1(a) Smt. Harini,, W/o Maq)unath, A.ged about 31 years. •Pav.an S/o Manjunath, Aged about 9 yea.s. 1K) Pallavi, D/o Manjunath, Aged about 6 years. The Petitioners 1(b) to I (e) are Minors, represented by their natural Guardian inc tlier t.h.e Pe.htioner 1(a) tierebi All are i esiding at K. K. Pet, Shidlaghatta Town, Chikkahaliaonra District. (By Sri, /Snir MSN LAW ASSOCiATES’t PETITION ER S I 1 ( b ) . AND:

3.

Sn. D.ix. MaIikariima, S/o Appajappa, Aged about 58 rears, P/Et Deshad Pet, Sidiaghatta Tow xi, Chikkabailapura District. Sri. DA. Prakasli. S/c Apuajappa, Aged about 46 ears, P/at Deshad Pet, Sidiaghatta Tow ii, Chikkaballapiu’a District. Sri. DA. Vijarkumar, S/o Appcjappa, Aged about 43 years, B/at Deshad Pet, Sidia.ghat.ta Tovn, Chilkaballapura District. 4, G.etha, W/o MN. Srinivas, D/o Krisbnappa, Aged. about 33 years, B/at. Eeshad Pet, Sidlaghatta Tow ri Chikkaballapura District. FIBS DAN DENTS (By SrI Smt: V. VISWANATH & .MK. SHIVARAJU, Advocates for 6/ R I R3) This Writ Petition is fileS, raider Articles quasa the ci ax rlatc( i 2:26 & 227 of Constnnt n r Ax ha T33CS(t ii H Z\ and oMe C aTz kSnlnamaru., as per AnnexureOx ascii Llxereb\ allow i1ja wnt pet1.t1on 51 as°9 Ta the smtm I ‘ixJ ‘s 10 21 2 Ax ‘ 2 III idec 1Si ER It 3— This ‘Writ lieU lion COflhiflg on fb: orders Oil this nay the court marie the Ibilowin order. ORDER The counsel for the petitioners is absent. Two weeks tIme granted to comply with tile ohice objectons failing which the petition. starids dismissed. T By :AMB C 3y liD B W Sdi° JUDGE ,>c ,—‘ : — - COy Aslptyg&1e&qtm, tE Core of C Oh l° U’ ‘C

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. AS. PACHHAPURE WRIT PETITION No. 47252 of 2011). ← Search more judgments