Dismissed
Mr Gabriel Gnanadas v. the Karnataka Central Diocese
Karnataka HCWP/9407/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.9407/2015 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN:
2
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT MURUGESHPALAYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560 017. 6. D. SHANTHA KUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, NO.2, JYOTHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560 017.
…PETITIONERS
AND:
3
4
5
MURGESHPALAYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560 017.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NITESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.M.ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3 TO 4; NOTICE TO R2, R5 TO R15 D/W V/O DTD 26.03.2015; R9 AND R10 ARE DELETED V/O DTD 26.03.2015)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN MISC. NO. 949/2014 ORDER PASSED BY THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DATED 28.1.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE - A; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.1.2015 IN MISC. NO. 949/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BY TREATING IT AS UNJUST, UNFAIR AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed a memo stating that pursuant to the impugned order, elections to the Pastorate Committee of the respondent No.4 was held on 07.03.2018 and a new committee assumed charge. He therefore submits that the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.9403/2013 as well as the Miscellaneous Petition in Misc.No.949/2014 have become infructuous.
6
However, if the petitioners consider that the writ petition survives for consideration, they are free to move this Court for restoration of the writ petition.
Sd/JUDGE
NR/-
MR. GABRIEL GNANADAS AND OTHERS
THE KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE AND OTHERS
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court