Disposed

Sri. Sanjeev S/O Narayan Kulkarni v. Sri. Fakirappa S/O Dundappa Kattimani

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2020WP/108569/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court disposed of the matter upon counsel for the petitioners submitting that construction work was completed and an undertaking had been filed in the trial court, leaving no substance to the writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without any further order.

Sri. Sanjeev S/O Narayan Kulkarni Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^{T H} DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.NO.108569/2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI SANJEEV S/O NARAYAN KULKARNI, AGE : 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KILLA, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST; BELAGAVI.

¶8

SRI PRAKASH S/O KRISHNAJI KULKARNI, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KILLA, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK. DIST; BELAGAVI.

¶9

.. PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SHRI R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI FAKIRAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA KATTIMANI, AGE : 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KILLA, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST; BELAGAVI.

¶13

SMT.SHANKAREWWA, W/O FAKIRAPPA KATTIMANI, AGE : 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KILLA, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

..RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SHRI K.ANAND KUMAR, ADV.)

¶16

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

¶17

¶18

GOKAK AT GOKAK ON 11.07.2017 IN M.A.NO.1/2017 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

: ORDER :

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners have undertaking the construction work and completed the

¶22

construction work.

¶23

He further submits that petitioner No.1 has filed an affidavit on 07.12.2016 before the Trial Court in O.S.No.396/2016, wherein he has undertaken that in case, the respondents/ plaintiffs succeeds in the suit, the petitioners will remove the slab put up in “ABCD” portion which is three feet width as contended by the plaintiffs.

¶24

In view of his submission, the construction work has been already completed and also in view of the undertaking given by petitioner No.1, nothing survives for

¶25

¶26

consideration. Accordingly, writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sri. Sanjeev S/O Narayan Kulkarni v. Sri. Fakirappa S/O Dundappa Kattimani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sanjeev S/O Narayan Kulkarni v. Sri. Fakirappa S/O Dundappa Kattimani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Tippeswamy S/O Late a Tippeswamy Vs P Doddamarappa S/O Late Sanna Obaiah

Ku.Kushboo D/O Tabrej Halageri, Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Annigeri Green Tech, Vs Vishwanath Gouda S. Hiregoudar

Shri.Mallappa Sangappa Gurlkatti Vs Smt.Sushila W/O Vijay Kumbar

Smt.Subhadra Kiran Gavade Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ashok Ningappa Patil Vs Secretary (Revenue)