SRI K.M. RAVINDRA v. SRI KRISHNAPPA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications stand closed. TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.19089 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI K.M. RAVINDRA S/O LATE B.K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KUMBENA AGRAHARA, BIDARAHALI HOBLI, KADUGODI POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560067. (BY SRI RAVI KUMAR K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIKULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT KUMBENA AGRAHARA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KADUGODI POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560067. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAGADEESHA P., ADVOCATE) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.821/2007 DATED 19.03.2021 PENDING ON THE FILE - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3897 WP No. 19089 of 2021 HC-KAR OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER
Sri. K.M. Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, through video conference, submits that the petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. His submission is taken on record.
Operative part
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications stand closed. TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is dismissed as withdrawn
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.