1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.44994 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SRINIVASAHAN

S/O LATE VELLAI,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.1102,

PERIYARNAGAR,

DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI,

BENGALURU-560045.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAMAMURTHY H.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR,

CC.F.INDIA,

NO.22, MUSEUM ROAD,

BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

BANGALORE.

3.

SRI. STEPHAN XAVIER,

S/O ANTHONY XAVIER,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

3(a) MIS.NATESH,

D/O LATE STEEPHAN XAVIER,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

2

3(b) MRS. NEVILLIE STEEPHAN

S/O LATE STEPHAN XAVIER

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

3(c)

MR. SHANSHUNK,

S/O LATE STEPHAN XAVIER

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT POB.NO.23946,

PIGEON HOLE NO.0812,

CABIN CREW, DEPARTMENT QUTAR,

AIRWAYS DOHA, QATAR.

4.

SMT. SHIRLEY V. WAGHULE,

D/O SRI ANTHONY XAVIER,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.3(a) TO 3(c) AND 4 ARE

R/AT VIHARI POST, KHOPOLI TALUK,

KHALAPURI RAIGAD DISTRICT.

5.

SRI BASIL XAVIER,

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

S/O ANTHONY XAVIER,

RESIDING AT SY.NO.67A/1,

B.T.KAWADE ROAD,

NEXT CITADEL, GHORPURI-200124

NO.5 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.89.

CHOWDAPPA BUILDING,

TANNERY ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,

BANGALORE-560 005.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a TO c);

SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

SRI. B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.07.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE

ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE IN P.MISC

NO.38/2007 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

3

UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT

PETITION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3(a to c)

as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits

that the P.Mis.No.38/2007 from which the present Writ

Petition arises, was disposed off on 26.11.2021 and hence,

this Writ Petition is rendered infructuous.

2. There is no representation for the petitioner.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, this petition

is dismissed as having become infructuous.

However, it is open for the petitioner to seek

restoration of this writ petition if the submission of the

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Nos.3(a to c)

is incorrect.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM