IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.2103 OF 2017 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUSHEELA WIFE OF LATE PRABHAKAR POOVANI AGED 60 YEARS 2. MRS. VANDANA WIFE OF DHANYA KUMAR AGED 46 YEARS 3. MRS. SANDIKA WIFE OF PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED 41 YEARS 4. SMT. MAKARANDA WIFE OF LATE SANATHKUMAR POOVANI AGED 56 YEARS 5. SMT. SUKANYA P. BALLAL AGED 42 YEARS WIFE OF PRAVEEN CHAND BALLAL 6. SULAKSHANA P. AJRI AGED 39 YEARS WIFE OF PRAVEEN KUMAR AJRI 7. MRS. RATHNAMMA C. ARIGA, AGED 46 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE CHANDRARAJA 8. MRS. SUPRIYA, WIFE OF DHANANJAYA, AGED 36 YEARS, 9. MRS. ARCHANA WIFE OF MAHAVEER JAIN AGED 34 YEARS 10. MRS. ARPANA WIFE OF SHARATH AGED 31 YEARS.
11. MR. AMITH ARIGA SON OF CHANDRARAJA AGED 32 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT INDABETTU HOUSE BANGADY POST OFFICE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214. ALL REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. AJITH KUMAR 12. MR. AJITH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, SON OF LATE SANATH KUMAR POOVANI, RESIDING AT INDABETTU HOUSE, POST OFFICE BANGADY BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214.
... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. N. SUKUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. A.B. IBRAHIM (FORMER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT) PRESENTLY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KUIDF NAGARABIVRIDDI BHAVAN 22, 17TH ‘F’ CROSS, BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, OLD MADRAS ROAD NEAR B.M.T.C. BUS STOP BENGALURU-560 038. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, PRAYING TO TRY THE ACCUSED FOR NOT OBEYING/COMPLYING THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.43465 OF 2015 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D.
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 24.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.43465 of 2015 has been disobeyed. In terms of the said order, three months time was granted to the second respondent to dispose off the case. Since the same was not done, the instant petition is filed.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the accused submits that an application was filed before the learned Single Judge seeking extension of time. By the order dated 25.07.2019, the learned Single Judge has extended time by four weeks.
3. In view of the submissions made, we do not find any ground to proceed further. However liberty is granted to file a fresh petition, in case of subsequent disobedience.
Hence, the proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE sma