Karnataka High Court
Smt Geetha Bangera vs Smt Sulochana S Kotian on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION NO. 53212 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT GEETHA BANGERA
W/O KRISHNA BANGERA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.1-61,
KONCHADY,
MANGALORE-575 008.
2. SRI KRISHNA BANGERA
S/O UNNI POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.1-61,
KONCHADY,
MANGALORE-575 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RANJITH K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT SULOCHANA S KOTIAN
W/O RAMAPPA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT 15/1182, M.H.B. COLONY
GORAI ROAD, BORIVALI (W),
MUMBAI 92.
W.P. No. 53212/2018
2
2. SMT NALINI N. SUVARNA
W/O LATE NARAYANA SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
READYMONEY TERRACE, ROOM NO.44,
DR. ANNI BESANT ROAD, WORLI NAKA
MUMBAI 18.
S. UMESH (SINCE DEAD)
S/O LATE KAMALA V. KOTIAN
3. SMT PRABHU
D/O LATE KAMALA V. KOTIAN
R/AT KABBU NIGHLU
HOUSE, SURATHKAL,
MANGALORE TALUK.
4. SMT CHANDRA R. SUVARNA
W/O RAMESH SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
KHATOON MANZIL, ROOM NO.8,
GROUND FLOOR, VAKOLA MAZID
SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI-55.
5. SMT PUSHPA U. SUVARNA
D/O KAMALA V. KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KOLAMBE HOUSE
HEJAMADI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TQ -574 103.
6. SMT REKHA
W/O ANIL SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT 7/A, VIHAR DARSHAN
7TH RAJAWADI RAD, GHATKPER (E)
MUMBAI-77.
W.P. No. 53212/2018
3
7. SMT SUGANDHI A. GUJARAN
W/O LATE ANANDA GUJARAN
R/AT A-202
RASHMI AVENUE, THAKRA COMPLEX,
WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
KANDIVALI,
MUMBAI-400 101.
8. SUNIL
S/O LATE ANANDA GUJARAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT A-202
RASHMI AVENUE, THAKRA COMPLEX,
WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
KANDIVALI,
MUMBAI 400 101.
9. SMT SUJATHA SADANANDA
D/O LATE ANANDA GUJARAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT A-202
RASHMI AVENUE, THAKRA COMPLEX,
WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
KANDIVALI,
MUMBAI 400 101.
10. SUPRIYA
D/O LATE ANANDA GUJARAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT A-202
RASHMI AVENUE, THAKRA COMPLEX,
WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
KANDIVALI,
MUMBAI 400 101.
S.K. BABY
(SINCE DEAD BY LR'S)
W/O KANTHAPPA POOJARY,
W.P. No. 53212/2018
4
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT MOOKAMBIKA MANDIR,
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY,
MANGALORE-575 008.
11(a) SMT.KAMALAKSHII
W/O LATE S.K.BABU
AGED 71 YEARS,
NEAR KOOKAMBIKA TEIMPLE,
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY
MANGALORE-575008
11(b) SRI.DEVIPRASAD
S/O LATE S.K.BABU
AGED 44 YEARS,
NEAR KOOKAMBIKA TEIMPLE,
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY
MANGALORE-575008
11(c) BHAVYA
D/O LATE S.K.BABU
AGED 39 YEARS
NEAR KOOKAMBIKA TEIMPLE,
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY
MANGALORE-575008
11(d) SUNIL
S/O LATE S.K.BABU
AGED 37 YEARS,
NEAR KOOKAMBIKA TEIMPLE,
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY
MANGALORE-575008
12. THE REPATRIATE CO-OPERATIVE FINANCE
AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED (REPCO)
NO.20-3-259,
SAHAKARI MAHAL,
1ST FLOOR, MISSION STREET
W.P. No. 53212/2018
5
MANGALORE 575 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
13. MRS.AGNESS D'COSTA
W/O ROBERT D'COSTA
RAD, COSTA VILLA
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY,
MANGALORE.
SMT. JAYA BENDORE
(SINCE DEAD BY LR'S)
W/O MONAPPA BENDORE
AGED 70 YEARS,
R/AT SHEETHAL, 1/105,
DEVIDAYAL ROAD,
MULUND (W), MUMBAI-80.
14(a) MRS.DEEPA M BENDORE,
D/O LATE JAYA M BENDORE
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT SHEETHAL, 1/105,
DEVIDAYAL ROAD,
MULUND(W)
MUMBAI-400080
14(b) MRS.DISHA M BENDORE
D/O LATE JAYA M BENDORE
SHEETHAL, 1/105,
DEVIDAYAL ROAD,
MULUND (W)
MUMBAI-400080
..RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO ACT ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED IN RA NO.170/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
W.P. No. 53212/2018
6
ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present
either physically or through video conference. No
reasons are forthcoming for non-appearance of the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show
that in this writ petition, which is of the year 2018, as
long back as on 03.06.2020, this Court had ordered
for issuance of emergent notice. Since then, till date,
the petitioners have not taken steps to issue emergent
notice to the respondents. No reasons are
forthcoming for not taking steps. Thus, the very
purpose of issuing emergent notice to the respondents
has been defeated by the act of the petitioner in not
W.P. No. 53212/2018
taking steps to serve emergent notice upon the
respondents, which shows that the petitioners are not
interested in proceeding further in this Writ petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed
for not taking steps against the unserved respondents
as well for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mbb
