IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.438 of 2015 (GM-CPC) Between:
1 . MISS SUMITA AMARLAL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O LATE S. AMARLAL, RESIDING AT NO.278, 3RD "A" MAIN, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-095.
2 . MISS KARISHMA AMARLAL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O LATE S. AMARLAL, RESIDING AT NO.278, 3RD "A" MAIN 8TH BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-095.
3 . SMT. HEENA AMARLAL @ SIMRAN R. MAHATANI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O RAJESH MAHATANI, RESIDING AT HIMA APRTMENTS, FLAT NO.312, STREET NO.6, BARKATPURA, HYDERBAD.
4 . SMT. KANCHAN AMARLAL W/O LATE S AMARLAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.278, 3RD "A" MAIN, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095.
5 . SRI. KAMALESH KUMAR JAIN S/O GHEESULAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.303/304, 3RD FLOOR, SHREE APARTMENT, NO.6/13, KRISHNA RAO CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.
6 . SRI. SANDEEP KUMAR JAIN S/O GHEESULAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT AT FLAT NO.303/304, 3RD FLOOR, SHREE APRTMENT, NO.6/13, KRISHNA RAO CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004 (By Sri. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE) And:
1 . SRI A SHANKAR AMARLAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE S. AMARLAL, RESIDING AT NO.4, III CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, ARUNACHAL APRTMENTS/RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.T-2, BANGALORE-27.
2 . SRI. A SHYAM AMARLAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE S AMARLAL, RESIDING AT NO.4, III CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, ARUNACHAL APRTMENTS/RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.S-2, BANGALORE-27.
3 . SMT. BEENA BHATIJA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O RAMESH BHATIJA, ...PETITIONERS D/O LATE S AMARLAL, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301, K.T APARTMENT, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 051.
4 . THE CANARA BANK N.R. ROAD BRANCH, NARASIMHARAJA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI C. GOWRISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SHRI DINESH MAHALE, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 18.11.2014 made on I.A.No. 1 in FDP No.25015 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Vide ANN-G insofar as it relates to the rejection of the petitioners claim for detaining the Schedule Assets & etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R After arguing the matter for sometime, Shri P.D. Surana, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer sought for in the application may not survive for consideration in view of the subsequent events. He prays that he be granted liberty to make a fresh application seeking for appropriate reliefs.
Shri C. Gowrishankar, the learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 has no objection for the same.
Hence, petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Petitioners are at liberty to make fresh application seeking for appropriate reliefs, if they so desire.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn