Dismissed
Smt. Rathnamma v. Smt. Y N Amaravathi
Karnataka HCWP/6756/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 44796 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.6756 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
IN W.P.No.44796 of 2012
BETWEEN:
All residing at Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk – 560 076. …PETITIONERS (By Shri. L.S. Venkatakrishna, Advocate)
2
AND:
(By Shri. H.S.Vivekananda, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. S.V.Shastry, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 26.6.2012 vide Annexure-F passed by the III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-25) on I.A.No.8 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, read with Section 151 of CPC, with such ancillary and consequential order including the awarding of the costs.
IN W.P.No.6756 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
3
4
Respondents 3 to 6 are Represented by their GPA Holders.
5
(By Shri. H.S.Vivekananda, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. S.V.Shastry, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Shri. Prakash T Hebbar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 and 8 notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 6 are dispensed with)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash or set aside the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in O.S.No.4513/2007 on I.A.No.10, filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC, for impleading the proposed respondents as necessary and proper parties with such an ancillary and consequential orders with costs.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The Counsel for the petitioners files a memo seeking to withdraw the petitions.
The memo is placed on record and the petitions are
dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
UNNAMED PETITIONERS
UNNAMED RESPONDENTS
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court