Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 as infructuous because the underlying civil suit had already been disposed of by the trial court.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 51512 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. N.N. BETARAYAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT NO.51, 2ND CROSS BHAKTHA MARKENDEYA LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 026. .... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH SETTY V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. N.R. NAGARAJ AND A.H. VANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:17.08.2016 PASSED ON I.A.10 BY THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.9040/2011 VIDE ANNEX-E AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE COURT COMMISSIONER AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
MKM
SHRI. N.N. BETARAYAPPA
SMT. B.K. ROJI
SHRI. B.K. ANAND
SMT. KRISHNAVENI
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
