✦ Karnataka High Court

SRI. NARAYANA REDDY v. MR. MOHAMMED KHASIM JANE @

WP No. 16457 of 2022TARA VITASTA GANJU, JHBCS LAYOUT, MINHAJ NAGAR2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
TARA VITASTA GANJU, JHBCS LAYOUT, MINHAJ NAGAR
Neutral citation
2026:KHC:7609

Outcome

Dismissed

The writ petition is dismissed in default and for

Provisions considered

Judgment

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 16457 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

1. SRI. NARAYANA REDDY S/O. LATE VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.2/145, J.R.PETE ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 524322

2. SRI. VENKATA SARAVAN KUMAR REDDY S/O. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.2/145, J.R.PETE ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 524322 (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:

1.

MR. MOHAMMED KHASIM JANE @ …PETITIONERS MOHAMMED KHASIM SAHEB S/O. LATE MOHAMMED IMAM SAHEB AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078

2.

MRS. K. SHARFUNNISA W/O. MR. MOHAMMED KHASIM JANE @ MOHAMMED KHASIM SAHEB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078 - 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:7609 WP No. 16457 of 2022 HC-KAR

3.

MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAQ S/O. MR. MOHAMMED KHASIM JANE @ MOHAMMED KHASIM SAHEB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078

4.

MR. MOHAMMED YUSUF S/O. MOHAMMED MUSHTAQ AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078

5.

MAS. MOHAMMED THOFIA S/O. MOHAMMED MUSHTAQ AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.5 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN - SRI. MOHAMMED MUSHTAQ R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078

6.

KUM.SABHA D/O. MOHAMMED MUSHTAQ AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.6 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN - SRI MOHAMMED MUSHTAQ R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078

7.

MR.MOHAMMED SALEEM S/O. MOHAMMED KHASIM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078

8.

MR.MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN S/O. MOHAMMED KHASIM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7609 WP No. 16457 of 2022 HC-KAR R/AT NO.154, JHBCS LAYOUT MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560078 …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.3 SERVED; RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.07.2022, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH- 15) IN O.S.NO.3571/2013, OF ALLOWING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 4A OF CPC, FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN ADVOCATE COURT COMMISSIONER FOR COLLECTION OF FURTHER DEPOSITION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PW-1 AT HIS RESIDENT AT ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE SAID APPLICATION I.A.NO.10 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

1. None appears for the petitioners. There was no ORAL ORDER presence on the last date of hearing as well.

Operative part

2. The writ petition is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7609 WP No. 16457 of 2022 HC-KAR

3. All pending applications, if any, stand closed. VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 - 4 -

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed in default and for

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXVI r. 4A.

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. WP No. 16457 of 2022). ← Search more judgments