Dismissed¶¶26

Sri D R Siddaiah v. Sri Krishnaiah

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/22166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court; Writ Petition No.22166/2022 (GM-CPC); Article 227 Constitution of India; Vijaykumar A. Patil; dismissal as infructuous; Lok Adalat settlement; O.S.No.196/2021 dismissed as not pressed 14.09.2024; M.A No.6/2022 order dated 10.10.2022; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC T. Narasipura; Annexure-G; petitioner D.R. Siddaiah; respondent Krishnaiah (unrepresented); counsel Chandrakanth R. Goulay; NC: 2026:KHC:29763; decided 17.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

In view of counsel's memo recording the Lok Adalat settlement and the dismissal of O.S.No.196/2021 as not pressed, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. ¶¶26

Sri D R Siddaiah Vs Sri Krishnaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29763 W.P. No.22166/2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22166/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. D.R. SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE RACHAIAH R/AT DOOR NO.16, 1ST CROSS TELECOM COLONY, NEAR JALAPURI MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD MYSURU 570 019.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE RACHAIAH R/AT DANAYAKANAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571124.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT KRISHNAIAH – SD AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN M.A NO.6/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T NARASIPURA, DATED 10.10.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29763 W.P. No.22166/2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶23

writ petition has rendered infructuous. To that effect, he has also filed a memo. The said memo reads as under:

¶24

“The parties have arrived at a settlement before the Lok Adalat, and consequently, O.S.No.196/2021 filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed as not pressed on 14.09.2024. Therefore, the relief sought in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration hence, the matter has become infructuous and may be disposed of accordingly, in the interest of justice”.

¶25

2. In view of the aforesaid memo, the writ petition

¶26

is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶27

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶28

¶29

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Sri D R Siddaiah v. Sri Krishnaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D R Siddaiah v. Sri Krishnaiah

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

Smt Jacintha Sangeetha D Souza Vs Sri K R Venkatesh

Mrs B P Madhuritha Vs Mr Suresh Madhavahegde

Smt. Padmavathamma Vs Smt. Savithramma

Indian Gypsy Works Fellowship Trust Vs Smt Muniyamma

Smt Sudha Vs Shri Abubekar

Smt. Saida Begam Vs Smt. Fathimunnissa Alias Noorjan