IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.31165/2015(GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. M/S ANUPAMA COFFEE LINKS B.M. ROAD, HASSAN-573201 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER B.H. DEVAPPA S/O B.L. HONNAPPA 2. B.H. DEVAPPA S/O B.L. HONNAPPA AGED ABUT 64 EYARS ANUPAMA ESTATE, SULAGODU, RAYARAKOPPALU POST ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 3. SMT. SUVARANALATHA DEVAPPA W/O B.H. DEVAPPA AGED ABUT 59 YEARS ANUPAMA ESTATE, SULAGODU RAYARKOPPALU POST-573 201 ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 4. B.P.PRAKASH S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABUT 58 YEARS COFFEE PLANTER, SURUGODU ESTATE, BICCODU POST-573 201 BELUR TALUK , HASSAN DISTRICT 5. SMT. PRABHA PRAKASH W/O B.P. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SURUGODU ESTATE BICOODU POST-573 201 BELUR TALUK, HASSAN R2 TO R5 ARE PARTNERS OF 1ST RESPONDENT -PARTNERSHIP FIRM ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND Y S PURNACHANDRA S/O LATE Y.S. SADASHIVAPP AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS AUDITOR, OLD SALAGAME ROAD, NORTHER EXTEN.
HASSAN-573 201 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDL. MACT AT HASSAN ON I.A.NO.2 IN R.A.NO.35/2010 DT.12.6.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-D BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND DISMISS THE I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR OPINION OF THE HANDWRITING EXPERT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Respondents in RA.No.35/2010 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, have come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 12.6.2016 passed on IA.No.2.
2. When this matter is taken up for consideration this day, the stage of the original proceedings in RA.No.35/2010 is looked into in the e-courts website of Hassan District. On going through the same, it is seen that RA.No.35/2010 has already been disposed of on merits by judgment dated 19.01.2016. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition as the same has become infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-