The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 as infructuous because the respondent had already completed construction, removing the necessity for reliefs sought in order dated 19-07-2017 and 03-08-2017.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; pending I.A.No.1/2017 did not survive.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.36176 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Both are r/a # 5465, Ravindranagar, Old Housing Board, Hassan – 573 201.
.. Petitioners
(By Sri. P.H. Virupakshaiah, Advocate)
W.P.No.36176/2017
2
AND:
M.S. Rangegowda, S/o. Late Siddegowda, Aged about 67 years, R/a HIG 10, 17th Cross, Behind BSNL Bhavana, Hassan – 573 201.
.. Respondent
(By Smt. Rakshitha V.N. for Sri. K. Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 19-07-2017 vide Annexure-E passed in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.266/2017 by the VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, set aside the order dated 03-08-2017 vide Annexure H passed in M.A.No.26/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan by allowing the application I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.266/2017 on the file of VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan vide Annexure B, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through video conference submits that, in view of the subsequent development that has taken place in the matter, wherein the respondent No.1 herein has completed the putting up of construction, the present writ petition has become infructuous.
W.P.No.36176/2017
3
Learned counsel for the respondent who is physically present in the Court also makes the supporting submission, stating that the writ petition has become infructuous.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous.
In view of disposal of the main petition, the pending I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
BMV*
Siddalingamma
M. Shivaswamy
M. Ravishankar
M. Sulochana
M.S. Rangegowda
H.B.Prabhakar Swamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
