DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315 v. SRI. GIRISH A. YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The petition is dismissed as having become
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Hence, the following: ORDER i. ii. The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. I.A.No.5 filed in O.S.No.56/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49
Judgment
#1. SHRI BASAPPA S/O LAKKAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
#2. SHRI DUNDAPPA S/O LAKKAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
#3. SHRI PRADHANI S/O LAKKAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
#4. SMT. CHANNABASAWWA W/O LAKKAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
#5. PRASHANT S/O DUNDAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
#6. SHRI ASHOK S/O PRADHANI MAREGUDDI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18090 WP No. 100297 of 2024 HC-KAR DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
#7. SHRI PRAKASH S/O PRADHANI MAREGUDDI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND:
#1. KUMARI VIDYA D/O BASAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315, NOW AT MAREGUDDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 121.
#2. SMT. SHOBHA W/O BASAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315, NOW AT MAREGUDDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 121.
#3. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O LAKKAPPA MAREGUDDI, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI,TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315. (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GIRISH A. YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05-01-2024 ON IA NO.5 PASSED IN O.S. NO.56/2019 BY THE FILE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18090 WP No. 100297 of 2024 HC-KAR THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
#1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
#2. This petition is filed against the order dated
05.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.56/2019 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti seeking temporary injunction. The said application was inter se between the defendants.
#3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3- defendant No.4, who filed I.A.No.5 before the Trial Court, would submit that defendant No.4 would not press I.A.No.5 and seeks to withdraw the said application.
#4. Learned counsel appearing petitioners/remaining defendants would submit that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18090 WP No. 100297 of 2024 HC-KAR they have no objection to withdraw I.A.No.5 filed before the Trial Court.
#5. Considering the submissions made, I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed.
#6. Hence, the following: ORDER i. ii. The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. I.A.No.5 filed in O.S.No.56/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is dismissed as having become
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 treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.