IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 :BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.731/2015 BETWEEN:
1. T.M.NARENDRA, S/O MANJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YRS., MANAGING PARTNER, KABINI LAKE VIEW RESORT, NO.359, ‘M’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE – 570 001.
2. B.R.SHRIDHAR MURTHY, S/O H.N.RAJARAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YRS., PARTNER, KABINI LAKE VEIW RESORT, REGIONAL KARNATAKA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD, MYSORE – 577 001.
(BY SRI.YATHISH.J.NADIG, ADV. [ABSENT]) AND:
K.M. DHRUVA KUMAR, S/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YRS., R/AT NO. M.I.G.30, 3RD STAGE, ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE – 570 018.
(BY SRI.V.RANGARAMU, ADV.) … PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DTD: 26.3.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. S.J., MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.157/2013 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DTD: 9.5.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. IC.J. AND J.M.F.C., MYSORE IN C.C.NO.2102/2011.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners and their counsel have remained absent. This court vide order dated 15.09.2015 referred the parties to the Mediation Centre at Bengaluru, to explore the possibility of settlement. The Director, Mediation Centre at Bengaluru sent a report dated 30.10.2015 stating that, though the case has been listed several times, both the parties never appeared before the Mediation Centre. Hence, there could not be any mediation at all, as such, the matter was referred back to the court once again.
2. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners appear to be not interested in proceeding with the case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, though he appeared before the Mediation Centre at Bengaluru, by mistake his presence has not been noted.
4. I do not want to discuss anything about the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, the revision petitioners have not shown any interest in prosecuting the case before this court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served in adjourning the matter. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE KGR*