Dismissed¶47

Sri. Munishamanna v. Sri. Munishamaiah

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2025WP/41302/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; writ petition default by petitioner; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; W.P. No.41302/2019 (GM-CPC); Karnataka HC Bengaluru; Vijaykumar A. Patil J.; order dated 06.08.2019 of Senior Civil Judge, Malur; I.A.No.18; O.S.No.490/2011; setting aside abatement; condonation of delay; Annexure-K; stay of suit proceedings dated 23.09.2019; non-furnishing of PF; notice to respondent No.4; deceased respondent No.8; petition rejected against respondents 4 and 8 for non-taking of steps; 15 July 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:26088.

What did the court decide?

With the petitioner unrepresented when the matter was called in both the morning and afternoon sessions on 15.07.2025, and after repeated indulgences, it appeared that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter. ¶46

Sri. Munishamanna Vs Sri. Munishamaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26088 W.P. No.41302/2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.41302/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶8

SRI. MUNISHAMANNA S/O GIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/OF CHEEMANDALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114.

¶9

(BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADV., [ABSENT])

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. MUNISHAMAIAH S/O LATE M.S. MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE M.S. MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶14

SMT. USHA RANI D/O LATE M.S. MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. UDAYABHANU PRAKASH S/O LATE M.S. MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. DRAKSHAYINI D/O LATE M.S. MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26088 W.P. No.41302/2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. SHOBHA RANI D/O M.S. MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶20

SMT. RUKKAMMA D/O M.S. MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶21

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT BANGARA RANGAPPA ROAD 3RD CROSS, MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT 563130.

¶22

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA D/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS.

¶23

SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AND LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.8 AND 9 ARE R/AT MASJID ROAD, MALUR TOWN MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT 563130

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAMESH M.N. ADV., FOR R2 AND R5 [ABSENT] R1, R3, R6, R7 AND R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:01.07.2025 AGAINST R4 AND R8 PETITION STANDS REJECTED FOR NON TAKING STEPS)

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR ON I.A.NO.18 IN O.S.NO.490/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.18 OR IN ALTERNATE DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO RECONSIDER I.A.NO.18 AND OTHER 2 APPLICATIONS TO SETTING ASIDE ABATEMENT AND CONDONATION OF DELAY & ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:26088 W.P. No.41302/2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This Court on 01.07.2025 passed the following order:

¶35

"This Court on 23.09.2019 stayed the proceedings in the suit and notice was ordered. On 08.06.2023, the case was called twice but none appeared for the petitioner and finally one week time was granted to take steps. Thereafter, on 07.08.2024, finally two weeks time was granted to do the needful in the matter. Then, on 03.03.2025, the matter was ordered to be listed on 05.03.2025. On 05.03.2025, at the request, the matter was ordered to be listed on 19.03.2025. On 19.03.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even when the matter was called on the second/afternoon session and ordered to be listed on 26.03.2025. On 26.03.2025, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was ordered to be listed next week. Thereafter, on 18.06.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner, finally a week's time was granted to do the needful and also to take steps in respect of deceased respondent No.8 and ordered to be listed on 01.07.2025.

¶36

Today, the matter is listed for non compliance of office objections regarding non furnishing of PF & etc., for issuance of notice to respondent No.4 and non taking steps in respect of deceased respondent No.8, but there is no representation for the petitioner when the matter is called in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:26088 W.P. No.41302/2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

However, to show one indulgence, a week's time is granted to do the needful failing which the petition against respondent No.4 & 8 shall stands rejected without further orders.

¶41

List on 09.07.2025."

¶42

Again on 09.07.2025, there was no representation

¶43

for the petitioner and to show one indulgence, the matter is posted today.

¶44

Today also there is no representation for the petitioner when the matter is called in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session. It appears that the petitioner

¶45

is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the petition

¶46

is dismissed for non prosecution.

¶47

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶48

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri. Munishamanna v. Sri. Munishamaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Munishamanna v. Sri. Munishamaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. K.M. Laxmana Vs Sri. A.R. Krishnappa

Sri Marlingegowda Vs Smt Lakshmi

Surya Nataraj Sharma Vs Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd.

H. Manjunath Vs Godhavari Petkar

Ismail Vs T N Girish

Smt Rudramma Vs T v Manjunath