S. BHAGYALAKSHMI v. SRI. K. SHIVA SHANKARA REDDY
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KHC:51423
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.20437 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. S. BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O LATE S. SAMPANGIRAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. SRI. S. JANARDHAN S/O LATE S. SAMPANGIRAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. SRI. S. KISHOR KUMAR S/O LATE S. SAMPANGIRAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4. SMT. PRATHIMA S D/O LATE S. SAMPANGIRAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ALL ARE R/AT NO.23/1, SHIVASHAKTHI NILAYA, RADIANT SILVER BELL 2, APARTMENT ROAD, SADARAMANGALA, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, KADUGODI PLANTATION, KADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560 067. (BY SRI. H MAREGOWDA., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) …PETITIONERS AND:
SRI. K. SHIVA SHANKARA REDDY S/O LATE D.P.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51423 WP No. 20437 of 2023 HC-KAR R/AT NO.59, SRIRAM TEMPLE ROAD, DOMMALURU, BENGALURU - 560 071
SMT. RUKMINIYAMMA W/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
SRI. VENUGOPALA REDDY S/O SRI. DODDA ANNAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT MUNNEKOLALU VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 037
SMT. N. PADMA W/O SRI. N. K. SANTHOSH REDDY, D/O SRI. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.89, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, DODDAKANNAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 037
SMT. N. MANJULA W/O SRI. THAYAPPA, D/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.80, APPAREDDY PALYA, INDIRANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 038.
SMT. N. NAGARATHNA W/O SRI. B. JANARDHANA REDDY, D/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO 1838, 14TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN, 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51423 WP No. 20437 of 2023 HC-KAR
SMT. N. SAROJA W/O LATE SHANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SMT. DIVYARANI D/O LATE SHANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
SRI. D. VIPPUL REDDY S/O LATE SHANTHARAJU,. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NOS.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT MUNNEKOLALU VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU - 560 037 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR IN ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2023, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT NO.94/2022 DISMISSING THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC IN MISCELLANEOUS BENGALURU, THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER
1. Matter called twice. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. On 27.11.2025, this Court has passed the following order:- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51423 WP No. 20437 of 2023 HC-KAR "Matter is listed for the 7th time before this Court for non-compliance of office objections. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks further time to comply office objections. Though this Court is not inclined to grant further time to comply office objections, by way of indulgence, finally a week's time is granted to comply office objections. It is made clear that by the next date of hearing, if the office objections are not complied, the petition shall be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. List this petition on 05.12.2025."
Operative part
2. Till date, office objections are not complied with and there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners though the matter is called twice. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid peremptory order passed by this Court, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution
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.