IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.53894 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. LAXMI @ LAXMAMMA W/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, ALAGUDU VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-582401.
2. KAMALA @ KAMALAMMA W/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, II CROSS, ALAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-582401.
3. SHANTHA @ SHANTHAMMA W/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ALAHALLI SLUM BOARD, ALAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-582401. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.R.SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JAVARAYI S/O LATE BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 9TH CROSS, ALAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-582401 2. CHANNAIAH S/O LATE BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OPP. MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE, ALAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-582401.
3. MARI @ MARISHETTY S/O LATE BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ALAHALLI SLUM BOARD, ALAHALLI MANDYA CITY-582401.
4. SUNIL, S/O LATE SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
5. SUNITHA S/O LATE SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT II CROSS, ALAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-582401.
6. RAMESHA S/O NARASIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2ND CROSS, ALAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-582401. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri P S DIVAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 IN I.A.NO. 7 FILED UNDER SECTION 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN R.A.NO. 97/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE- A, BY QUASHING THE SAME.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The appellants No.1 to 3 in R.A.No.97 of 2012 on the file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya District, has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 31.10.2014 passed on I.A.No.7.
2. When this matter is taken up for consideration this day, the stage of the original proceedings in R.A.No.97 of 2012 is looked into in the website of Mandya District Court. It is seen that R.A.No.97 of 2012 has already been disposed of vide judgment dated 15.06.2017. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition as the same has become infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as has become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE dh