✦ Karnataka High Court

PERIYAPATNA v. PERIYAPATNA

Writ Petition No. 12519 of 2012RAVI MALIMATH

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Hence, the petition is dismissed for

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. In spite of granting sufficient time, office objections are not complied with and the matter is posted for the second time before the Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE KM

Judgment

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.12519 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1 SRI SURESH S H S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2 SRI VISHWANATH S H S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3 SRI RAJASHEKAR S H S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4 SRI SRINIVAS S H S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5 SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE REP BY PETITIONER NO.1 HEREIN PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/O DODDAKAMARAVALLI VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI 2 PERIYAPATNA TALUK. ...PETITIONERS (BY M/S: P V RAMESH KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES – ABSENT) AND: 1 SRI BYRAIAH S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2 SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 3 SRI SIDDAIAH S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4 SRI PUTTAIAH S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 5 SRI SWAMAIAH S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/O DODDAKAMARAVALLI VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5.4.2012 PASSED ON I.A.NO.41 IN FDP NO.8/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO HEAR THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND PASS FINAL DECREE. 3 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R None appears for the petitioners nor any representation is made.

Operative part

2.

In spite of granting sufficient time, office objections are not complied with and the matter is posted for the second time before the Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE KM

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the petition is dismissed for

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 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.

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. Writ Petition No. 12519 of 2012). ← Search more judgments