Pending since 2016, the petitioners failed to appear in person or through video conferencing despite two calls. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution, noting the petitioners' apparent lack of interest.
Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12306 WP No. 106819 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 106819 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.A.PATHAN AND
SRI. P.H.GOTKHINDI., ADVOCATES[ABSENT])
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12306 WP No. 106819 of 2016
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA.R.PATIL., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing. When the matter is listed before the Court, and is called out, the advocate must be present in the Court. His or her absence may effect the case.
Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil., learned HCGP for respondents has appeared in person.
As could be seen from the Writ papers, the petition is filed in the year 2016. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The petition is pending from eight years. As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12306 WP No. 106819 of 2016
through video conferencing. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 61
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel despite multiple listings
Babusab Hajaresab Bendigeri
Gousmodinsab S/o Fakrusab Bendigeri
Shabira W/o Malliksab Bendigeri
Mohamad Aslam S/o Malliksab Bendigeri
The State of Karnataka
The Tahasildar/ Assistant Director of Land Revenue
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
