MOHAMMED NAWAZ v. P.V.GOVINDACHARYULU
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 53685 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED NAWAZ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE MOHAMMED KASIM SINCE DEAD BY LR’S 1A. SHAMEEM AKHTAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ 1B. MOHAMMED ZAKIN NAWAZ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ 1C. MOHAMMED KHASIM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ 1D. TAJ PARVEEZ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ W/O MOHAMMED ILIYAZ 1E. SUMAIYA BALQEEH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ W/O NAZEER AHMED 1F. RAZIKHA THAHERA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ W/O DR.SYED RAHEEM 1G. TAYEEBA KAUSAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29122 WP No. 53685 of 2017 1H. AYESHA NAWAZI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ ALL RESIDENTS OF #16, V-CARE MEDICAL BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, KHAZEE STREET BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004
MOHAMMED NIYAMATHULLA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE MOHAMMED KASIM R/AT NO 195 , THIMMAIAH ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001 (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M.V., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:
1. P.V.GOVINDACHARYULU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE P.V. LAKSHMIPATHY R/AT NO 28, 1ST CROSS, C.T.BED, BSK III STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070
2. K.GOVIND AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN R/AT NO 55, NANJAPPA LAYOUT NEAR J.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 062
SMT.KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O LATE NARYANAPPA R/AT NO 32/A, MOOKAMBIKA LAYOUT SUBRAMANYAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 061 (BY SRI.V.VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 V/O/D 12/12/2017, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29122 WP No. 53685 of 2017 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 23.6.2017 PASSED BY THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN O.S.3224/2012 ALLOW THE I.A.9 FILED BY THE R-7 UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC SEEKING HER IMPLEADMENT AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT NO.7 IN THE SAID SUIT, AT ANNEXURE-D BY HOLDING THE SAME AS OPPOSED TO LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI) On 12.02.2024, 27.06.2024 and 23.07.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption for 'dismissal'. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is of the year 2017 and it appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter.
Operative part
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 SD/- JUDGE
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
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 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.